Where Do Things End With Vlad? (h/t romad1)

[gehringer_2]

excerpted from Peter Pomerantsev in today's NYT

Quote

Mr. Putin likes to perform both sides of the humiliation drama: from the seething resentment of the put-upon Russian everyman to cosplaying Peter the Great. This allows him to appeal to Russians’ deep-seated sense of humiliation, which the Kremlin itself inflicts on people, and then compensate for it. It’s a performance that taps into the cycle of humiliation and aggression that defines the experience of life in Russia, and now Ukraine is the stage......

....In the face of such threats, it can be tempting to try and placate Russia. The editorial board of The New York Times has said that Ukraine will likely have to accept territorial compromises. Mr. Macron has said that the West should avoid humiliating Russia. Such proposals are fundamentally misguided: Russia’s sense of humiliation is internal, not imposed upon it. To coddle the Putin regime is merely to participate in the cycle. If you yearn for sustainable security and freedom, abusive partners and predators cannot be indulged. The only option is to limit the sources of dependency.

 

[chasfh]

9 hours ago, romad1 said:

1. You do not give Putin anything as a reward for invasion and war crimes against the Ukrainian people.

2. You do not put your own nuclear chips in play for Ukraine.

3. Putin will get his nuclear-free Europe and still keep invading neighbors, because look how effective invading Ukraine was.

[chasfh]

8 hours ago, gehringer_2 said:

excerpted from Peter Pomerantsev in today's NYT

Mr. Putin likes to perform both sides of the humiliation drama: from the seething resentment of the put-upon Russian everyman to cosplaying Peter the Great. This allows him to appeal to Russians’ deep-seated sense of humiliation, which the Kremlin itself inflicts on people, and then compensate for it.

Looks awful familiar …

[romad1]

Tucker is missing 

 

 

[ewsieg]

5 hours ago, chasfh said:

3. Putin will get his nuclear-free Europe and still keep invading neighbors, because look how effective invading Ukraine was.

Who else is he going to invade?  The western pushback for Ukraine was real.  Ukraine is doing the fighting, but without amazing support from the west, Russia is likely controlling most of the country by now.  You think he'd go into Finland?  That's basically NATO-lite right now.  Whereas, China?

I just don't see how what was mentioned could be viewed as an enticement and reason to do more invasions.  

[chasfh]

2 minutes ago, ewsieg said:

Who else is he going to invade?  The western pushback for Ukraine was real.  Ukraine is doing the fighting, but without amazing support from the west, Russia is likely controlling most of the country by now.  You think he'd go into Finland?  That's basically NATO-lite right now.  Whereas, China?

I just don't see how what was mentioned could be viewed as an enticement and reason to do more invasions.  

There are any number of ex-Soviet republics they could go after. Azerbaijan, Georgia, and Chechnya are all places Russia has invaded just since the Soviet dissolution. Unless you’re going to take Putin’s word for it that he has no interest in any of that, which, not for nothing, a lot of other Republican voters also definitely do. 

[romad1]

 

[ewsieg]

1 hour ago, chasfh said:

There are any number of ex-Soviet republics they could go after. Azerbaijan, Georgia, and Chechnya are all places Russia has invaded just since the Soviet dissolution. Unless you’re going to take Putin’s word for it that he has no interest in any of that, which, not for nothing, a lot of other Republican voters also definitely do. 

Georgia and Chechnya falling under the rule of Putin, versus now where they are under the rule of their own president who is under the rule of Putin, should not be our worry.  He could go after Azerbaijan, that's about the only one left.  If Ukraine fell, I think Moldova was clearly the next target, that's off the table now.  

In the eyes of the world his army has been shown to be a mockery.  He knows this.  A continued war like we have now will put tens of millions in Africa alone at risk of starvation.  Is a continued fight against Putin in the Donbass region to ensure he can't turn his attention elsewhere worth potentially millions of lives elsewhere?  Possibly it is because Putin always surprises us again, but it just seems like most of you, none of whom i'd call warhawks, seem to think it's worth risking everything and the only way this war should end is with Ukraine driving Russia out of their land.

[1984Echoes]

2 hours ago, ewsieg said:

Who else is he going to invade?  The western pushback for Ukraine was real.  Ukraine is doing the fighting, but without amazing support from the west, Russia is likely controlling most of the country by now.  You think he'd go into Finland?  That's basically NATO-lite right now.  Whereas, China?

I just don't see how what was mentioned could be viewed as an enticement and reason to do more invasions.  

If they had their way they would have already taken Odessa by now, and would be invading Moldova, a free country but not part of NATO, to steal their Transdniestra region.

Putin would also be invading a portion of Poland and Lithuania (not the whole country of either, but mostly the border area between the two... to establish a land corridor to their Kaliningrad territory on the Baltic sea. Those two countries cut off his access to Kaliningrad, going through Byelorussia of course.

He's also threatened the Baltic States (Latvia, Estonia, Lithuania, all NATO), NATO-Romania, Non-NATO-Khazakstan, NATO-Poland, etc., etc...

He wants to be Peter the Great and restore under Russian control ALL the former lands of the Soviet Union. He has said so. BTW: Did you know that Russia once ruled over Finland and 1/3 of Sweden (1809-1917)? So yes... he has also threatened those two countries. The only thing stopping him is Western resolve to use every tool possible, at their disposal, to deter him. The Ukrainians have turned out to be a major road block to Putin's War of Conquering Territory quest. But this also includes NATO, heavy sanctions, cutting off the EU from Russia's oil and gas teet. And nukes.

Giving up nukes is a Hitler-level appeasement ("Oh here you go Adolph, you can take the Sudetenland if you want. Will you now stop your plans to attack other countries?" "Sure thing. Absolute guarantee no future invasions from Nazi Germany."). Putin could give a fuck what we give up. Whatever we give up is an absolute sign of weakness to him and as a Predator, is just an invite to commit more war crimes/ violence/ territorial theft.

[1984Echoes]

The aim is to stop Putin/ Russia from ever doing this again.

It takes all forms of deterrence.

Including nukes.

Which Russia is boatloaded with.

And perfectly willing to use as a matter of military doctrine. 

I'm surprised they haven't already used them given the sorry state of this war effort from them. But if Ukraine attempts to retake Crimea, all bets are off. I predict Putin WILL use nukes if the Ukrainians make that attempt.

[chasfh]

57 minutes ago, ewsieg said:

Georgia and Chechnya falling under the rule of Putin, versus now where they are under the rule of their own president who is under the rule of Putin, should not be our worry.  He could go after Azerbaijan, that's about the only one left.  If Ukraine fell, I think Moldova was clearly the next target, that's off the table now.  

In the eyes of the world his army has been shown to be a mockery.  He knows this.  A continued war like we have now will put tens of millions in Africa alone at risk of starvation.  Is a continued fight against Putin in the Donbass region to ensure he can't turn his attention elsewhere worth potentially millions of lives elsewhere?  Possibly it is because Putin always surprises us again, but it just seems like most of you, none of whom i'd call warhawks, seem to think it's worth risking everything and the only way this war should end is with Ukraine driving Russia out of their land.

Reported incompetence of their armed forces notwithstanding, I believe an adventurous Putin armed with nukes is always a worry.

[gehringer_2]

28 minutes ago, ewsieg said:

In the eyes of the world his army has been shown to be a mockery.  He knows this.  A continued war like we have now will put tens of millions in Africa alone at risk of starvation.  Is a continued fight against Putin in the Donbass region to ensure he can't turn his attention elsewhere worth potentially millions of lives elsewhere?  Possibly it is because Putin always surprises us again, but it just seems like most of you, none of whom i'd call warhawks, seem to think it's worth risking everything and the only way this war should end is with Ukraine driving Russia out of their land.

OTOH, he's probably bitten off more than he can chew this time which means this is possibly the optimum time to stop him decisively enough that he either a) burns up his military enough to neuter himself, b)burns enough support inside Russia to fall.

If the West fails to take of advantage of this opportunity the next time the strategic situation may be far less favorable.  There might not be a large strong population ready to undertake the fight, he might have learned enough not to make the same tactical mistakes again, the Chinese may strengthen his military tech to where the Western weapons differential won't be as decisive. It seems naive to think Putin's malignancy will in anyway abate if the outcome is a loss of 20% of Ukraine and a temporary military stalemate. The 'risk of everything' is inherent to Putin's existence as leader of Russia and he will continue to leverage those fears against us until he fails sufficiently, or he dies. And in the latter case there is no guarantee his replacement won't be as bad. Does this have to end with Ukraine whole as of status quo 2013? I don't know. But it should end with Putin's army clearly and unambiguously defeated at least to where it's the Russian side that is suing for peace.

Plus, for once, this is not a war of our choice, it's Ukraine's war of necessity, and after all the times since 1953 that we engaged in conflicts of choice we started for the wrong reasons in the name of people/cultures who in the end weren't interested enough, there seems something unseemly about the idea of now failing to support Ukraine in a fight they do desperately want to win and when they are fighting much more for the ideals we usually only claim to fight for when our real reasons were oil, or political ideology or other economic expediency.

[ewsieg]

20 minutes ago, 1984Echoes said:

The aim is to stop Putin/ Russia from ever doing this again.

It takes all forms of deterrence.

Including nukes.

Which Russia is boatloaded with.

And perfectly willing to use as a matter of military doctrine. 

I'm surprised they haven't already used them given the sorry state of this war effort from them. But if Ukraine attempts to retake Crimea, all bets are off. I predict Putin WILL use nukes if the Ukrainians make that attempt.

I'm a little confused by this response.  Is the argument that the US should support Ukraine at all costs and all deaths due to a prolonged recession and the starvation of millions is acceptable because Putin is that great of a threat?   As such, Ukraine must win this war and we should support them.....but, if Ukraine wins the war so much that they are able to try and take back Crimea, we will be in a situation where Nukes are being used.  

[1984Echoes]

34 minutes ago, ewsieg said:

I'm a little confused by this response.  Is the argument that the US should support Ukraine at all costs and all deaths due to a prolonged recession and the starvation of millions is acceptable because Putin is that great of a threat?   As such, Ukraine must win this war and we should support them.....but, if Ukraine wins the war so much that they are able to try and take back Crimea, we will be in a situation where Nukes are being used.  

Ukraine has chosen to remain free and independent. I support that, yes.

Your assertion of "all costs and all deaths/ recession and the starvation of millions" is irrelevant. Of course they are not acceptable. But what part of FREE and INDEPENDENT and willing to FIGHT for their FREEDOM do you not understand? This is not your choice or my choice, it is THEIR choice. And it is THEIR choice how and when to stop fighting for their freedom. It is not yours or my choice to FORCE them to stop fighting. That MOOTS almost everything else you've stated or queried on the nuke issue. THEY decide when to stop fighting for their freedom. Not a side nuke deal with Russia; which they have NO CONTROL over anyways.

Which brings up my next point: Putin will NOT RESPECT any nuclear deal. He'll continue fighting or disrupting anyways. This also MOOTS your argument in its entirety. Which is why of course you are not answering this point. Please... answer. Putin could care less about your appeasement. He will continue doing as he pleases regardless of your desire to pull nukes out of Europe, and that will actually make him MORE dangerous. Yes, he's that great of a threat.

Appeasing him will NOT resolve world starvation because he will still impede Ukrainian grain and fertilizer from getting to market. Which defeats your concern. It's a stupid move. Do you want to address that?

I never said Ukraine "must win this war". I think they are capable of pushing Russians back to the 2014 borders. I think Russia overstepped militarily, in the face of US/ Ukrainian/ EU/ NATO resolve. And again, they deserve to fight for their freedom. I support that.

And yes, I think an attempt to retake Crimea will result in Putin using nuclear weapons. Was I unclear on that?

Edited July 26, 2022 by 1984Echoes

[1984Echoes]

One other point:

There are problems with grain distribution out of Russia and Ukraine, that feed the world's population, and hence creates possible death and starvation of 10's of millions in Africa (and SE Asia for that matter). To your point.

This problem is CAUSED by RUSSIA ATTACKING Ukraine.

So here's a simple solution:

Russia: STOP ATTACKING Ukraine.

See? That's a very simple solution. And we don't have to throw European security into the trash bin because you want to appease Putin.

Edited July 26, 2022 by 1984Echoes

[Screwball]

2 hours ago, 1984Echoes said:

The aim is to stop Putin/ Russia from ever doing this again.

It takes all forms of deterrence.

Including nukes.

Which Russia is boatloaded with.

And perfectly willing to use as a matter of military doctrine. 

I'm surprised they haven't already used them given the sorry state of this war effort from them. But if Ukraine attempts to retake Crimea, all bets are off. I predict Putin WILL use nukes if the Ukrainians make that attempt.

Dude, please go find the nearest mental hospital and check yourself in.

[1984Echoes]

21 minutes ago, Screwball said:

Dude, please go find the nearest mental hospital and check yourself in.

GFY.

[1984Echoes]

PS: Nukes have been in Europe for what, 70-ish years? Britain 1956 until today. France in 1960. Other NATO countries at various times with US weapons (Belgium, Germany, Italy, Netherlands, also Turkey... a lot of 50's emplacements by the Eisenhower administration). Protecting them first from the Soviet Union and now from threats from Russia/ Putin. But I need to check myself into a mental hospital?

Look in the mirror.

What an asinine comment.

[pfife]

people think we should reward Putin for the invasion?

Must be a republican.

[ewsieg]

12 minutes ago, gehringer_2 said:

Plus, for once, this is not a war of our choice.

I don't disagree with any points you have made except for this snippet above.  This is absolutely a war of our choice.  If we sat back and just used sanctions, if Zelinksky is still alive he's trying to piecemill a resistance from somewhere near the border of Poland.  

[romad1]

Slim Charles wisdom true today as it was in the early aughts

[romad1]

1 hour ago, pfife said:

people think we should reward Putin for the invasion?

Must be a republican.

Well, he is the only one defending manly men and their virility.   Which is why the Russian airborne forces were voted gayest ever. 

[pfife]

US capitulation is super US manly too 

[romad1]

13 minutes ago, pfife said:

US capitulation is super US manly too 

True story.  The Republican party is selling feather boas on their merch site.   That's to celebrate Marco Rubio and Lindsay Graham. 

[gehringer_2]

1 hour ago, ewsieg said:

I don't disagree with any points you have made except for this snippet above.  This is absolutely a war of our choice.  If we sat back and just used sanctions, if Zelinksky is still alive he's trying to piecemill a resistance from somewhere near the border of Poland.  

in that sense true, but my meaning was  "not a war we decided to start" - as in Iraq.

Edited July 27, 2022 by gehringer_2