|
alex314 posted:Since it's Clancychat thread: if Russia attacks NATO they don't really need to send armoured columns toward west, it'd be doable for them to destroy most of combat potential of baltics, Poland and whomever they pick for first strike target Yom Kippur-style. Then they could "regime change" Ukraine with massive strike and negotiate from the position of power. For example force demilitarization of baltics and eastern part of Poland. To be honest, I think they would have an actual issue with Poland, Polish troops actually have at least some combat experience and have been upgrading to NATO/Western weaponry. I don't think Poland could stand up to the Russians alone but if we are in the realm of fantasy, the Russians would be spread too thin to also take out Poland along with multiple other campaigns. Also, occupying Ukraine outside of the portions they currently hold is going to be pretty difficult and manpower intensive, Crimea and their portions of the Donbass are majority Russian and for the most part it seems resistance has been limited. The farther you go West, the more it becomes an issue though. Ultimately, the Russian military isn't as weak as we hope or as strong as we fear. Ultimately, their corps of professional troops is still relatively limited and as is the availability of their more modern equipment, much of what they use is still Soviet-era.
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2014 14:55
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 5, 2024 03:44 |
|
|
My Imaginary GF posted:You know, I heard its pretty cheap to buy a Chinese general. Maybe we could pay someone off by buying all that excess iron ore they're leaving out to rust at 73% off what we sold it to them for, and get them to move their little peasant army to the Russian borders. Hell, we'll craft some great talking points on how they're doing it to 'save the face of the Chinese nation at the Russian insult of not respecting Chinese culture' to negotiate a better deal on lots of natural gas. But they're moving to the borders on their own. And they might just push a little if they think Russia is weak.
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2014 15:03
|
|
|
Ardennes posted:That or find a better tax/sanction haven to hide it in. Also, you could also hold dollars in Russian banks...or line your mattress with them. Gold's overextended, but I'd expect them to invest in it anyhow. utjkju posted:Russia has a course on independence of ruble of dollar. With Russia, China, India, Turkey, Vietnam will to have payment in national currencies. Can join and other countries of BRICS later. I'm not talking Russia. I'm talking individual oligarchs. The men who Putin is theoretically beholden to, or who have enough money to have some say in the country. The equivalent of the Koches.
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2014 15:05
|
|
|
KORNOLOGY posted:Do people really not understand how much of a rabid, actively destabilising actor Russia could become if we get them to over-commit to on-going, non-goal-having wars that they can't pay for without ruining their economy and preventing meaningful reform for another generation because of how scared they'll be? I think that Russian reforms were kept in check by old guard soviet security officers, that were afraid of another perestroika or failed Yeltsin's reforms. To get Russia anywhere you'd also need to deal with massive corruption, and I'm not sure how likely it would be. Ardennes posted:To be honest, I think they would have an actual issue with Poland, Polish troops actually have at least some combat experience and have been upgrading to NATO/Western weaponry.
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2014 15:09
|
|
|
alex314 posted:Poland has few planes and attack helicopters, if Russian first strike destroyed them and some key targets polish army would be effectively neutralized in offensive capabilities. Russia has enough bases and units in Kaliningrad and Belarus to make that attack, IMHO. I'm not sure how good Russian cruise missiles and precision munitions are but I imagine they could organize enough. Of course launches of such missiles would put world seconds from full-out nuclear exchange.. Ultimately, I am skeptical the Russians would be achieve such an attack without the Poles already being on alert. Putin crept into Crimea but much of what he has done in the Donbass has been telegraphed. The issue of course is that Russia would likely still be engaged in Ukraine during such an attack anyway, if Russia has to fight a growing coalition of countries on their Western border they are going to be spread thin. Anyway, I don't think Russian intentions are that far West, ultimately I believe Putin does understand the limits of the Russian military. Ukraine has been for the Russians a central piece in their "sphere" something that has forever plagued the Ukrainians and the current strategy is ultimately to "get it back" without having to invade more Western lands in Ukraine through negotiation. I think Putin is actually fearful of having to wage war outside of Russian dominant areas, and that limits his choices. That said, I am surprised there hasn't been a discussion of more modern Russian weapon systems yet. How does a SU-30 stack up?
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2014 15:24
|
|
|
Russia is not going to attack Poland, full stop. As mentioned earlier, European militaries alone outnumber the Russian one, and with Turkey at the southern border it's almost double. The decision makers in Kremlin aren't insane, I'm guessing they'll ease tensions after they get whatever they want in Ukraine, satisified with "Standing up to the west" and "proving a point" to whoever tries to challenge the Russian influence in the old bloc countries. Just a shame they'll leave behind a ruined country and another destroyed image of Russians abroad. Not to mention what's going to happen to any-non Russians living in the contested territories, if Crimea is anything to go by. The odds of Russia joining NATO are higher than them going full clancy and invading the rest of Europe.
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2014 16:00
|
|
|
GaussianCopula posted:I think it's very unlikely that Russia would be able to succesfully invade western/middle europe once they encounter hostile civilian populations. With the modern arsenal of underground fighters (IEDs, RPGs etc.) combined with the threat of functioning military organizations would be a very strong opponent for the russian military, which is not the behemoth the Red Army was. Man, I didn't realize turkey had that many active troops. Now that I'm reading about it, they have one of the largest armies in the world. Also, if Russia went full Clancy I'm sure China would like some of their land in the far east.
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2014 16:31
|
|
|
Cat Mattress posted:So for Russia a neutral Ukraine is one that: I think the problem is, there's not much better the West can do for them at this point.  That said, it's clear the arc of history in Ukraine bends towards Europeanization. I think you're going to see a newly pro-Western Ukraine becoming more and more economically tied to Western Europe and less reliant on Russia, outside of energy needs. e: ranbo das posted:Man, I didn't realize turkey had that many active troops. Now that I'm reading about it, they have one of the largest armies in the world. I dunno, China might not consider it "worth it." They would have to get a lot farther north than just strips along the border to actually get to oil-producing regions:  The closest oil-producing region to China would be Sakhalin, and the Russians will be damned before they give that up. Expect to see nukes flying if the Chinese go for it. Majorian fucked around with this message at 16:53 on Sep 15, 2014 |
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2014 16:43
|
|
|
Ardennes posted:That said, I am surprised there hasn't been a discussion of more modern Russian weapon systems yet. How does a SU-30 stack up? Pretty decently - there was that famous exercise in Cope, India ten years ago, where Indian SU-30's achieved a 9:1 kill ratio against F-15's. I don't know how reliable this source is, but the advantages that the SU-30 displayed then are fairly circumstantial: quote:The Su-27 belongs to the same class of the U.S. F-14 and F-15, but unlike the American fighters it can fly at an angle of attack of 30 degrees and can also perform the “Pugachev Cobra”. quote:As pointed out by the USAF officer, this tactic “works in the simulator every time,” however, only few countries have pilots with the required skills to fly those scenarios. Obviously, the US has some more advanced jets now, although some of those have much-publicized problems of their own. (I wish there were a way of making a version of  with an F-22)The Eurofighter Typhoon stacks up much better against the SU-30, at least on paper, but from what I understand, that jet has problems of its own. Still, it sounds like the Typhoon performed very well against the SU-30 in a 2007 exercise. Majorian fucked around with this message at 17:19 on Sep 15, 2014 |
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2014 17:13
|
|
|
Is the Cobra maneuver seriously 100% of the hype they have for these jets? It seems like a funny thing to put all your chips on.
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2014 17:17
|
|
|
Majorian posted:Obviously, the US has some more advanced jets now, although some of those have much-publicized problems of their own. (I wish there were a way of making a version of Well, the PAK-FA is going to be Russia's answer to the F-22, however it is unlikely either one would see each other since they are both going to be kept on domestic soil. I doubt the F-22 will ever see action to be honest. I would like to hear if anyone has a F-35A to PAK-FA as a match up, as they would be the most likely 5th generation match up. As far as the Eurofighter, I think the MIG-35 and the SU-35S are geared to be comparable late 4th generation fighters. That said, I would be interested if someone has deeper knowledge on the level of their equipment since more or less they seem directly comparable at this point and maybe approaching parity in some areas. I don't think it really matter for a "Clancy-esque Invasion of Europe" especially since they don't have or won't have a very high number of advanced fighters and other combat aircraft but it makes breaching Russian airspace and achieving air superiority in combat zones a much more dicey affair. In addition there is the question of exports, and I am sure even some SU-30s in Iranian hands would make everyone nervous if not contemporary upgrades to legacy aircraft across the region. I heard Egypt was mostly buying MIG-29s but I assume they would be pretty recent export models.
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2014 17:28
|
|
|
Quoting one of your quotes Majorianquote:Further, Putin said, at the same time we see methodical attempts to undermine the strategic balance in various ways and forms — missile defense. The United States has essentially launched now the second phase in its global missile defense system. There are attempts to sound out possibilities for expanding NATO further eastward. That tells me that they have bought an intelligence assessment that doesn’t exist, that is basically fabricated. There is nobody in this town or in Brussels talking about expanding NATO. It’s not going to happen anytime soon. Yet Russian intelligence and the government obviously believe this. And that’s already a sign of something dangerous. Bip Roberts posted:Is the Cobra maneuver seriously 100% of the hype they have for these jets? It seems like a funny thing to put all your chips on.
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2014 17:42
|
|
|
Bip Roberts posted:Is the Cobra maneuver seriously 100% of the hype they have for these jets? It seems like a funny thing to put all your chips on. It's a big part of it, yeah. It's basically a not-so-subtle way of saying "We have better pilots, because we can reliably perform this difficult maneuver  ."Ardennes posted:As far as the Eurofighter, I think the MIG-35 and the SU-35S are geared to be comparable late 4th generation fighters. One interesting thing I've found about the Eurofighter is that it has gotten some pretty bad press in the UK over the past couple years: UK National Audit Office posted:The cost of the Typhoon project has risen substantially. Despite the MOD’s now buying 72 fewer aircraft (down from 232 to 160, a reduction of 30 per cent), the forecast development and production cost has risen by 20 per cent to £20.2 billion. This is a 75 per cent increase in the unit cost of each aircraft. The cost of supporting each aircraft has also risen by a third above that originally expected. The MOD now estimates that, by the time the aircraft leaves service, some £37 billion will have been spent. Moreover, only 107 of those jets will be operational at a time, since by 2019 they will have retired all their Tranche-1 Typhoons (the earlier variant). So in total, the UK is paying something along the lines of $350 million per unit, which is a lot. As far as the T-50 PAK-FA is concerned, it sounds like a pretty incredible piece of hardware: quote:One Sukhoi patent opens by outlining a reference design similar to the Lockheed Martin F-22, but notes perceived shortcomings and areas where the Russian designers, starting a decade later after work on the Su-27 and its descendants, tried to do better. The F-22's thrust-vector control (TVC) system cannot provide roll or yaw control because the engines are too close together. The engine installation leaves no place for weapon bays in the same plane as the engines—they have to be installed around and below the inlet ducts. The serpentine inlet ducts add length and weight. Post-stall recovery is problematic if TVC fails, and the fixed fins and rudders are large. quote:There is still no definitive information about the T-50's internal weapons capability, but it seems likely that there are four separate weapon bays. Two bays outboard of the inlets each accommodate a single RVV-MD. Tandem bays between the engines each hold two missiles, but it is likely that the forward bay is deeper to house weapons such as the Kh-58UShKE, with the aft bay dedicated to air-to-air missiles in the R-77 family. In terms of overall stealth, the F-22 and F-35 are better, but still - it might turn out to be more maneuverable than the F-22.
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2014 18:04
|
|
|
A Buttery Pastry posted:Quoting one of your quotes Majorian Well, but I see a couple problems with that viewpoint. First of all, put that principle into perspective: the U.S. invaded and occupied Iraq based on faulty intelligence and neoconservative ideological fervor, and did a number of really stupid, counterproductive things over the past several years out of paranoia deluded judgment. Russia feels much the same way about our trustworthiness and reliability as we feel about theirs. I'm not saying this to suggest that it makes the US government just as bad as Putin's, or that it somehow excuses his atrocious behavior. But I bring it up because it demonstrates the limits of the "how can anyone believe a paranoid, delusional country" principle. Hate it or loathe it, all major military and strategic powers have deluded, paranoid views of other countries, but we still have to deal with them and they still have to deal with us. My second point is that there's deluded paranoia, and then there's deluded paranoia. There's what Russia has, and then there's what North Korea has. I don't think Russia has reached the degree of crazy they would need to attain to not realize how codifying a neutral Ukraine is very much in their best interests. They know that they've lost most of Ukraine culturally and politically, and they know they're losing them economically. The best they can hope for are assurances that Ukraine will still have some economic ties with Russia, and the guarantee that it will not join NATO, not have NATO missiles and ABMs on its territory, and will remain a buffer state.
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2014 18:26
|
|
|
Majorian posted:It's a big part of it, yeah. It's basically a not-so-subtle way of saying "We have better pilots, because we can reliably perform this difficult maneuver It does sound though that US options become more limited if a F-35A v T-50 match up occurs, one thing is clear we really don't one to be shot out of the sky and picked apart by the Russians. In addition, it is ridiculously expensive and its costs will only go up. Granted, Russia has a small economy in comparison but its interests are far closer to its territory. I expect the USAF or the USN would loathe to put a F-35A in direct competition with a fighter than could shoot it down. It is more or less a similar issue with the Typhoon, they are too expensive to lose. Also, they are in such limited number they make much more sense as defensive fighters than aircraft that could be spared in distant theaters. It doesn't mean Russia will fly the T-50 across Europe, but maintaining air superiority in Ukraine and Georgia may actually become a struggle unless a serious investment is made to reach parity.
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2014 18:28
|
|
|
Ardennes posted:It does sound though that US options become more limited if a F-35A v T-50 match up occurs, one thing is clear we really don't one to be shot out of the sky and picked apart by the Russians. In addition, it is ridiculously expensive and its costs will only go up. Granted, Russia has a small economy in comparison but its interests are far closer to its territory. I expect the USAF or the USN would loathe to put a F-35A in direct competition with a fighter than could shoot it down. A very good point, and this bears implications for future NATO policy. While it's unlikely that the US will fail to live up to its force commitments anytime soon, factors like these will probably shape exactly how the US fulfills those commitments. It harkens back to the article by Thomas Graham I posted in the Eastern Europe thread, "Who Cares About Ukraine?" (Hypothetical) US reticence to sending American jets against Russian ones based on cost calculations alone may mean that NATO ends up caring about Ukraine a lot less than it already does (or doesn't). quote:It doesn't mean Russia will fly the T-50 across Europe, but maintaining air superiority in Ukraine and Georgia may actually become a struggle unless a serious investment is made to reach parity. Yeah, well, the good news is that I think the Russian government, if it had its druthers, wouldn't be spending so much money on new jets either. As with the strategic nuclear balance, the Russians know that in terms of conventional forces, the best they're likely to get is effective parity with the West. Majorian fucked around with this message at 18:45 on Sep 15, 2014 |
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2014 18:42
|
|
|
Majorian posted:A very good point, and this bears implications for future NATO policy. While it's unlikely that the US will fail to live up to its force commitments anytime soon, factors like these will probably shape exactly how the US fulfills those commitments. It harkens back to the article by Thomas Graham I posted in the Eastern Europe thread, "Who Cares About Ukraine?" (Hypothetical) US reticence to sending American jets against Russian ones based on cost calculations alone may mean that NATO ends up caring about Ukraine a lot less than it already does (or doesn't). It has other implications than just Ukraine (and Georgia) but also the Middle East, having a arms supplier with comparable weaponry but different political motivations could be a very big shift in power. I don't think the issue is that NATO itself will be directly threatened by its ability to apply itself outside its borders could sharply be reduced. Then there is simply the issue of Euros and cents, austerity is not going to end in Europe and if anything European nations will likely struggle with the forces they already have. quote:Yeah, well, the good news is that I think the Russian government, if it had its druthers, wouldn't be spending so much money on new jets either. As with the strategic nuclear balance, the Russians know that in terms of conventional forces, the best they're likely to get is effective parity with the West. It doesn't need to reach parity with the West though, Russia needs parity with what the West is willing to spare which is anything is a pretty different bar. Ardennes fucked around with this message at 18:52 on Sep 15, 2014 |
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2014 18:49
|
|
|
Ardennes posted:It has other implications than just Ukraine (and Georgia) but also the Middle East, having a arms supplier with comparable weaponry but different political motivations could be a very big shift in power. All good points - and "maintaining parity with what the West is willing to spare" is hardly a sexy political selling point for Putin's regime domestically, which, contrary to what many outsiders believe, is still something he has to work to maintain.
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2014 18:55
|
|
|
Majorian posted:All good points - and "maintaining parity with what the West is willing to spare" is hardly a sexy political selling point for Putin's regime domestically, which, contrary to what many outsiders believe, is still something he has to work to maintain. That will ultimately be the issue, how much pain the Russian population will accept and that is a much more difficult question to answer and if anything it difficult to figure out. I admit I live in Moscow, but from what I have seen there hasn't been a drastic difference in prices or shopping patterns from what I have seen. That said, the Muscovites like their Czech beer, and French cheeses and I have a hard time seeing them live without them. However, one loop hole might be that certain brands are now brewing/producing in Russia itself to get around the possibility of sanctions. If anything it might be an interesting phenomena of return of a Cold War-esque chill but a maintenance of many of the creature comforts of capitalism. You can still buy a PS4, salmon and Ikea furniture in Russia. Ardennes fucked around with this message at 19:07 on Sep 15, 2014 |
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2014 19:04
|
|
|
Majorian posted:Well, but I see a couple problems with that viewpoint. First of all, put that principle into perspective: the U.S. invaded and occupied Iraq based on faulty intelligence and neoconservative ideological fervor, and did a number of really stupid, counterproductive things over the past several years out of paranoia deluded judgment. Russia feels much the same way about our trustworthiness and reliability as we feel about theirs. I'm not saying this to suggest that it makes the US government just as bad as Putin's, or that it somehow excuses his atrocious behavior. But I bring it up because it demonstrates the limits of the "how can anyone believe a paranoid, delusional country" principle. Hate it or loathe it, all major military and strategic powers have deluded, paranoid views of other countries, but we still have to deal with them and they still have to deal with us. *Who are still monumental shits, but at least their conception of the world is closer to reality. Majorian posted:My second point is that there's deluded paranoia, and then there's deluded paranoia. There's what Russia has, and then there's what North Korea has. I don't think Russia has reached the degree of crazy they would need to attain to not realize how codifying a neutral Ukraine is very much in their best interests. They know that they've lost most of Ukraine culturally and politically, and they know they're losing them economically. The best they can hope for are assurances that Ukraine will still have some economic ties with Russia, and the guarantee that it will not join NATO, not have NATO missiles and ABMs on its territory, and will remain a buffer state.
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2014 19:13
|
|
|
Ardennes posted:That will ultimately be the issue, how much pain the Russian population will accept and that is a much more difficult question to answer and if anything it difficult to figure out. That would be a very interesting experiment - we'd get a look at a Cold War version of Russia that didn't suck quite as hard at producing consumer goods. Bukharin would be proud.  As far as Moscow is concerned, it seems to me that one advantage Putin has is that his approval ratings will never be lower throughout most of the rest of Russia than they are in the capital. (with the obvious exception of the Southern Federal District, of course) Moscow may be huge, but most of the rest of Russia doesn't live there, and outside of it, he's never not going to be beloved. A Buttery Pastry posted:Yes, and the Russian government (and people) behave like the US would if it was like 80% neocon/Republican. Well, but we kind of did behave like that for a good eight years (even if the votes didn't necessarily reflect that, the policies did), and while Obama has moved us in the right direction, for the Russians (and a lot of the rest of the world!) it has been too little, too late. If you were in the Russian government, what would you see Obama's policies as - a permanent reversal of the Bush years, or just a lull in an ongoing storm of neoconservative crazy? Given that Russians tend to be pessimists (to make the understatement of the year) about the behavior of powerful Western states, it's hard to blame them for feeling a little paranoid about the US. quote:As I've pointed out, what counts as "neutral" is very much in question when one side is utterly paranoid, which I think the Russian reaction to Maidan's pro-EU protest shows pretty clearly, even if the North Korean government is even more deluded. Sure, a truly neutral Ukraine which serves as a link between the EU and Russia might be a very nice solution, for everyone involved, if it could be made to work. The only problem being the looming threat of invasion should Ukraine ever not hand out 12 points to Russia at the Eurovision Song Contest. Well, but is Russia really that interested in shoveling billions more rubles, risking Russian lives, incurring more sanctions, and generally becoming more of a pariah, simply to achieve the goal (?) of killing more Ukrainians/taking more Ukrainian territory? I think that for this to be likely, one would have to attribute a lot more irrationality to Putin and his government than is warranted. They're not idiots, and while they're aggressive shitlords, they're not THAT crazy. They know that if Russia stops its adventure in Ukraine soon, they will come out ahead. There's no reason for them to push it by not accepting Ukraine as a strategically neutral state. Majorian fucked around with this message at 19:24 on Sep 15, 2014 |
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2014 19:14
|
|
|
Majorian posted:I dunno, China might not consider it "worth it." They would have to get a lot farther north than just strips along the border to actually get to oil-producing regions:
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2014 19:28
|
|
|
Nessus posted:The Chinese? Please; the Japanese would build Gundam and go for it, looking at the map here. (If the US is pulling out of Europe, I assume they are also pulling out of Japan, who would probably promptly rearm.) Glorious Democratic People's Republic of Korea Taepodong V Mecha will smash decadent imperialist Japanese Gundams!!!
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2014 19:31
|
|
|
Majorian posted:That would be a very interesting experiment - we'd get a look at a Cold War version of Russia that didn't suck quite as hard at producing consumer goods. Bukharin would be proud. Eh, the territory the Russian state needs to hold is Moscow, to be frank if the rest of the country hated Putin and he controlled Moscow...he would still own the country. Everything in Russia is centralized to such an extent, including basic infrastructure like railways, controlling Russia without Moscow isn't going to be possible. If anything the Russian Civil War proved it as such. Another thing, is if you control Moscow, you are going to control the immediate metro area and that is roughly 20-25 million people I don't get the feeling Moscow is on the edge of revolution to be honest, there might be some additional tension in the air but I haven't seen any real cracks forming. It will be interesting to see how multinational corporations react. I suspect, if they physically can make money in Russia, they will. Sony won't pull out of Russia as long as their making money. Carlsburg isn't going to pull the multiple billion dollar industry that is Baltika.
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2014 19:40
|
|
|
Ardennes posted:Eh, the territory the Russian state needs to hold is Moscow, to be frank if the rest of the country hated Putin and he controlled Moscow...he would still own the country. Everything in Russia is centralized to such an extent, including basic infrastructure like railways, controlling Russia without Moscow isn't going to be possible. If anything the Russian Civil War proved it as such. Another thing, is if you control Moscow, you are going to control the immediate metro area and that is roughly 20-25 million people Fair enough, but the point is, Putin's always been in control of Moscow, and his approval ratings only go up outside of it. (except, again, in parts of the Southern Federal District, but who cares about them, right?) And Carlsburg had better not pull out of Baltika. I loving love that poo poo.
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2014 19:43
|
|
|
Nessus posted:The Chinese? Please; the Japanese would build Gundam and go for it, looking at the map here. (If the US is pulling out of Europe, I assume they are also pulling out of Japan, who would probably promptly rearm.) They're already making moves toward rearming, even with us still there. They are crazy afraid of a dominant China.
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2014 19:51
|
|
|
Majorian posted:Fair enough, but the point is, Putin's always been in control of Moscow, and his approval ratings only go up outside of it. (except, again, in parts of the Southern Federal District, but who cares about them, right?) That said, if Putin loses Moscow, it is also over. I expect the fight will be won or lost on the streets of Moscow. So far it doesn't look he has much resistance, but we will see.
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2014 19:56
|
|
|
Any thoughts about the possibility of him moving the capital to St. Pete's?
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2014 20:07
|
|
|
Majorian posted:Well, but we kind of did behave like that for a good eight years (even if the votes didn't necessarily reflect that, the policies did), and while Obama has moved us in the right direction, for the Russians (and a lot of the rest of the world!) it has been too little, too late. If you were in the Russian government, what would you see Obama's policies as - a permanent reversal of the Bush years, or just a lull in an ongoing storm of neoconservative crazy? Given that Russians tend to be pessimists (to make the understatement of the year) about the behavior of powerful Western states, it's hard to blame them for feeling a little paranoid about the US. Given how the EU has behaved in recent years, it should be painfully obvious to the Russians that the EU just cares about money, money, and more money. That's a pretty good basis for making a neutral Ukraine, since the EU would only care about lowering barriers to trade, while it would strongly oppose sanctions which it felt were not justified. Like seriously, just look at how much of an issue sanctions are now, and how little support there is in major NATO states for taking in Ukraine, and then imagine the EU, Russia, and Ukraine had made a big deal of Ukraine becoming a neutral link between the EU and Russia. The US would basically have to attempt unilateral action, in Russia's backyard, directly opposed to the interests of the major states of Europe. That seems about as good a guarantee of neutrality as Russia can reasonable expect. Majorian posted:Well, but is Russia really that interested in shoveling billions more rubles, risking Russian lives, incurring more sanctions, and generally becoming more of a pariah, simply to achieve the goal (?) of killing more Ukrainians/taking more Ukrainian territory? I think that for this to be likely, one would have to attribute a lot more irrationality to Putin and his government than is warranted. They're not idiots, and while they're aggressive shitlords, they're not THAT crazy. They know that if Russia stops its adventure in Ukraine soon, they will come out ahead. There's no reason for them to push it by not accepting Ukraine as a strategically neutral state. Ardennes posted:Carlsburg isn't going to pull the multiple billion dollar industry that is Baltika.  Majorian posted:Any thoughts about the possibility of him moving the capital to St. Pete's? 
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2014 20:09
|
|
|
Majorian posted:Any thoughts about the possibility of him moving the capital to St. Pete's? From a purely ideological perspective I don't think it would make sense -- Putin is playing to ideas of a distinct Russian identity bound up with pan-Slavism, neo-Eurasianism and the like, whereas St Petersburg is very much the symbol of Russia as a European state. If the worry's the liberal opposition in Moscow, well St Petersburg isn't exactly much better. Obviously there's the connection he has to the city from earlier in his career but I'm not sure how relevant that is 14 years into a presidency that's centralised everything step-by-step to Moscow. (e: well he wasn't technically president for 4 of those years, but you know what I mean)
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2014 20:17
|
|
|
A Buttery Pastry posted:If they're so paranoid about the US, they should have spent the Obama presidency creating a much more solidly neutral Ukrainian state, with actual treaties and poo poo. Basically, they should have made it so any American attempts at adding Ukraine to their sphere of influence would be rightly seen as America sticking its nose were it didn't belong by everyone who matters in the EU. They've already accomplished that in the short-term, though - France and Germany were already against allowing Ukraine and Georgia to accede anytime soon. The reason for the invasion, per my analysis, was to ensure that Ukraine's NATO aspirations remained permanently unfulfilled. quote:But that doesn't loving matter if their paranoia about Western intentions means they'll perceive pretty much any move by Western powers as being an attempt to subvert Ukrainian neutrality. I don't buy that this will necessarily happen, though. Even if they do perceive NATO actions as threats to Ukrainian neutrality, will it be something that they'll be willing to commit troops and funds to combatting? Or will it just be something that they'll whine loudly about? Because unless NATO suddenly starts setting up ABM sites in the Donbas, I'm guessing it's going to be closer to the latter than the former, and that's something that we and Ukraine can live with. Zohar posted:From a purely ideological perspective I don't think it would make sense -- Putin is playing to ideas of a distinct Russian identity bound up with pan-Slavism, neo-Eurasianism and the like, whereas St Petersburg is very much the symbol of Russia as a European state. If the worry's the liberal opposition in Moscow, well St Petersburg isn't exactly much better. Obviously there's the connection he has to the city from earlier in his career but I'm not sure how relevant that is 14 years into a presidency that's centralised everything step-by-step to Moscow. Well, but it is his hometown, and he hasn't exactly been quiet about preferring it as a city to Moscow. I'm not saying I think it's likely anytime soon, but it is a fascinating possibility.
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2014 20:22
|
|
|
Majorian posted:Well, but it is his hometown, and he hasn't exactly been quiet about preferring it as a city to Moscow. I'm not saying I think it's likely anytime soon, but it is a fascinating possibility. Sure, just that regardless of any personal affection he has for it I can't see it being a good political decision.
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2014 20:25
|
|
|
Maybe not. I'm not sure most Russians would care all that much, but I do think Ardennes brings up a good point, which is that his actually being there to control Moscow is a huge objective.
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2014 20:32
|
|
|
Majorian posted:They've already accomplished that in the short-term, though - France and Germany were already against allowing Ukraine and Georgia to accede anytime soon. The reason for the invasion, per my analysis, was to ensure that Ukraine's NATO aspirations remained permanently unfulfilled. Of course, if what Russia wants isn't a neutral Ukraine, but a subservient one, then that's going to be harder to make work. Majorian posted:I don't buy that this will necessarily happen, though. Even if they do perceive NATO actions as threats to Ukrainian neutrality, will it be something that they'll be willing to commit troops and funds to combatting? Or will it just be something that they'll whine loudly about? Because unless NATO suddenly starts setting up ABM sites in the Donbas, I'm guessing it's going to be closer to the latter than the former, and that's something that we and Ukraine can live with.
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2014 20:32
|
|
|
A Buttery Pastry posted:Doing what I suggested would make the most important European players in NATO, Germany in particular probably, Russian partners to an even greater degree. It wouldn't just be about Ukraine, it would be securing their entire western flank, leaving them more room to stomp on people in the south or to resist Chinese advances in the east. If Russia wanted to, it could do a whole lot to undermine the threat America poses by making America's most important partners oppose any crazy neocon bullshit. Yeah, but I think Putin's government is smart enough to know what option will net them the most gains. They're not going to kill the goose that lays the golden eggs in this scenario, as far as I can see. quote:I feel like this should be written in caps, but I'll spare everyone: Russia invaded Ukraine over a pro-EU protest that didn't manage to do much more than put a more EU friendly oligarch into power. It did accomplish a lot more than that, though - they managed to seize direct control of a huge warm water port and its surrounding areas in the Black Sea, they goosed Putin's approval ratings to record high levels, they've destabilized Ukraine and ensured that it will stay politically and militarily weak for years, and they've ensured that NATO will stay out of Ukraine for the foreseeable future. It was an audacious gamble, but it wasn't crazy or irrational by any means.
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2014 20:38
|
|
|
Majorian posted:Yeah, but I think Putin's government is smart enough to know what option will net them the most gains. They're not going to kill the goose that lays the golden eggs in this scenario, as far as I can see. Majorian posted:It did accomplish a lot more than that, though - they managed to seize direct control of a huge warm water port and its surrounding areas in the Black Sea, they goosed Putin's approval ratings to record high levels, they've destabilized Ukraine and ensured that it will stay politically and militarily weak for years, and they've ensured that NATO will stay out of Ukraine for the foreseeable future. It was an audacious gamble, but it wasn't crazy or irrational by any means.
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2014 20:44
|
|
|
A Buttery Pastry posted:I've got no idea what you're saying here. What I was trying to say there is that, if we manage to negotiate strategic neutrality for Ukraine, I doubt Russia will be the one to violate it anytime soon. It has plenty to gain from having Ukraine remain a neutral buffer state, and much to lose by threatening it militarily. quote:The protest didn't, Putin's invasion did. Which is precisely the point, this is closer to what a neutral Ukraine looks like to Russia than a dual free-trade agreement that links Ukraine with both Russia and the EU. Well, keep in mind, my argument focuses on the strategic/military dimension of this whole kerfuffle. I'm convinced that that is a more important dimension to the Russian government than the economic/free trade aspect. I know Ardennes disagrees with me on this, and I think he makes a strong case for his analysis, but I'm still convinced that Ukraine's relationship with NATO matters more to Russia than its potential alignment with the EU. Even if Ukraine's economic alignment is what matters most to Russia, though, the point is this: given a choice between having a strategically neutral Ukraine that also has dual free trade arrangements with the EU and Russia on the one hand, and continuing to commit manpower and untold amounts of treasure towards occupying Ukraine...which option do you think Putin's government is going to choose? You may still say option B, but I'm convinced he would much rather have option A.
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2014 20:53
|
|
|
Majorian posted:Well, keep in mind, my argument focuses on the strategic/military dimension of this whole kerfuffle. I'm convinced that that is a more important dimension to the Russian government than the economic/free trade aspect. I know Ardennes disagrees with me on this, and I think he makes a strong case for his analysis, but I'm still convinced that Ukraine's relationship with NATO matters more to Russia than its potential alignment with the EU.
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2014 20:56
|
|
|
A Buttery Pastry posted:Why did Putin invade Ukraine over what could probably have been reduced to a minor setback? Because he calculated that he had more to gain by intervening.
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2014 20:59
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 5, 2024 03:44 |
|
|
Majorian posted:Because he calculated that he had more to gain by intervening.
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2014 21:03
|
|