Russia-Ukraine war and related tensions Megathread

[KaiserDave]

Skip

Russian bear has not logged into his account since February 23

Thanks. I didn't know that. This time, from February 24 to my injury, I did not follow the forum very often, so I missed it. It will be necessary to follow, maybe someday he will appear here.

Skip

I don't recall seeing Russian Bear since this war began. Maybe he was jailed for taking part in an anti-war protest or something; I dunno exactly, no one knows.

Thanks. I doubt it. I do not remember exactly, but I think he once wrote that he lives in Belarus. But I'm not sure about that. In any case, there may be many reasons, at least - the intensification of repression for browsing certain foreign sites, who knows. Although I would like to hear his comments on the war and all these events.

BigSerg is unfortunately still around, but he doesn't talk as much as he used to. I know I'm glad you're back, but I hope you recover from your injuries soon and continue your heroic work. Slava!

[😥]

Skip

Russian bear has not logged into his account since February 23

I didn't know that. This time, from February 24 to my injury, I did not follow the forum very often, so I missed it. It will be necessary to follow, maybe someday he will appear here.

Skip

I don't recall seeing Russian Bear since this war began. Maybe he was jailed for taking part in an anti-war protest or something; I dunno exactly, no one knows.

I doubt it. I do not remember exactly, but I think he once wrote that he lives in Belarus. But I'm not sure about that. In any case, there may be many reasons, at least - the intensification of repression for browsing certain foreign sites, who knows. Although I would like to hear his comments on the war and all these events.

So would I.
I distinctly remember him saying Putin was too smart to start a war and even implied it wouldn't go well if he did.
Would be nice to hear from more Slavs in general and what they think. But not a lot of Slavs post on this forum.
Does Putin care about blocking people from accessing Atlas forum? Only the Holy Spirit knows at this point.

I doubt that anyone in Russia is making sure that none of the Russians visit specifically the Atlas Forum, but I think that all the secret services are watching what people are browsing on the Internet, and looking at the level of repression in Russia now, I very much doubt that the Russian Bear would like to come in once again, even purely to be safe. In any case, we do not know the real reason why he did not post all this time until Russian Bear himself says (of course, if it happens).

And as for the Slavs, in general, it mainly depends on the country/nation. The opinions of most Poles about the war and the opinions of most Slovaks about the war are very different, for example. But I agree that it would be good if we saw more posters from Slavic countries here.

[😥]

Skip

Russian bear has not logged into his account since February 23

Thanks. I didn't know that. This time, from February 24 to my injury, I did not follow the forum very often, so I missed it. It will be necessary to follow, maybe someday he will appear here.

Skip

I don't recall seeing Russian Bear since this war began. Maybe he was jailed for taking part in an anti-war protest or something; I dunno exactly, no one knows.

Thanks. I doubt it. I do not remember exactly, but I think he once wrote that he lives in Belarus. But I'm not sure about that. In any case, there may be many reasons, at least - the intensification of repression for browsing certain foreign sites, who knows. Although I would like to hear his comments on the war and all these events.

BigSerg is unfortunately still around, but he doesn't talk as much as he used to. I know I'm glad you're back, but I hope you recover from your injuries soon and continue your heroic work. Slava!

Thank you, Dave, for your kind words and friendly support. I haven't seen BigSerg these last few days. Although I know roughly that he would answer me, I am surprised that he is not defending Russia as actively as he did.

In any case, I want to return the thread to the topic for which it was created, because our replies with you, Dave, and with TimTurner are now clearly moving away from the main, very important topic.

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

Skip

Russian bear has not logged into his account since February 23

I didn't know that. This time, from February 24 to my injury, I did not follow the forum very often, so I missed it. It will be necessary to follow, maybe someday he will appear here.

Skip

I don't recall seeing Russian Bear since this war began. Maybe he was jailed for taking part in an anti-war protest or something; I dunno exactly, no one knows.

I doubt it. I do not remember exactly, but I think he once wrote that he lives in Belarus. But I'm not sure about that. In any case, there may be many reasons, at least - the intensification of repression for browsing certain foreign sites, who knows. Although I would like to hear his comments on the war and all these events.

So would I.
I distinctly remember him saying Putin was too smart to start a war and even implied it wouldn't go well if he did.
Would be nice to hear from more Slavs in general and what they think. But not a lot of Slavs post on this forum.
Does Putin care about blocking people from accessing Atlas forum? Only the Holy Spirit knows at this point.

I doubt that anyone in Russia is making sure that none of the Russians visit specifically the Atlas Forum, but I think that all the secret services are watching what people are browsing on the Internet, and looking at the level of repression in Russia now, I very much doubt that the Russian Bear would like to come in once again, even purely to be safe. In any case, we do not know the real reason why he did not post all this time until Russian Bear himself says (of course, if it happens).

And as for the Slavs, in general, it mainly depends on the country/nation. The opinions of most Poles about the war and the opinions of most Slovaks about the war are very different, for example. But I agree that it would be good if we saw more posters from Slavic countries here.

I bet VPNs are being quite useful for Russians right about now. I heard the Russian government is promoting some pretty bad "alternatives" for some Western websites Russians have gotten used to.
(Take Yandex, for example. That's the only Russian video website that's good for anything when compared to Youtube)
On a sidenote, nice to see you're doing well personally. Injuries aren't fun. Let it be known I consider you a brave man.

[KaiserDave]

Andriy, do you think Ukraine is capable of launching a major offensive to liberate Kherson Oblast entirely?

[Storr]

Russian television knows Britain has nukes too, right?

https://twitter.com/francis_scarr/status/1520846423629213699?s=20&t=_c7CE-mC...

At least these empty threats are eminently memeable:
https://twitter.com/NotWoofers/status/1520870567729147904?s=20&t=_c7CE-mCsmh...

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

Russian television knows Britain has nukes too, right?

https://twitter.com/francis_scarr/status/1520846423629213699?s=20&t=_c7CE-mC...
At least these empty threats are eminently memeable:
https://twitter.com/NotWoofers/status/1520870567729147904?s=20&t=_c7CE-mCsmh...

Easy for him to say, when he's not out in the field as a grunt holding fire in a trench, or being shot at by Ukrainian sharpshooters, or in a tank that a Ukrainian drone might successfully blow up.
Easy for people like him to talk so uncautiously about military action, especially when he would not be the one actually doing it.
Baghdad Blyat over here just talking up his country's military capabilities as if they are limitless.
These people deserve to be mocked six ways till Teusday.

[It’s so Joever]

Skip

Russian bear has not logged into his account since February 23

Thanks. I didn't know that. This time, from February 24 to my injury, I did not follow the forum very often, so I missed it. It will be necessary to follow, maybe someday he will appear here.

Skip

I don't recall seeing Russian Bear since this war began. Maybe he was jailed for taking part in an anti-war protest or something; I dunno exactly, no one knows.

Thanks. I doubt it. I do not remember exactly, but I think he once wrote that he lives in Belarus. But I'm not sure about that. In any case, there may be many reasons, at least - the intensification of repression for browsing certain foreign sites, who knows. Although I would like to hear his comments on the war and all these events.

I was on the forum in the immediate start of the invasion and I’m fairly certain I remember Russian Bear being almost repentant for his bad predictions and said this would end Putin. He hasn’t posted in a while.

[DINGO Joe]

“Russian security concerns” is a poor disguise for domination and control. They should not be given what they want.

I'm not advocating that we do what Russia wants. I'm establishing the reasoning for this war being rational from the Russian perspective.
If some hostile defensive alliance was expanding into our hemisphere, I'm sure we wouldn't want Mexico and Canada in it...

I think you are giving too much legitimacy to Russian accusations that they have legitimate concerns that the eastern bloc entering NATO is a threat to invade Russia verse the actual concern that the eastern bloc enters NATO means Russia can’t bully them into compliance

Well, I think it's self-evident that NATO expansion renders Russia even more of a second-rate power than before. And Russian leaders care about that.

And if Ukraine is in NATO, then that means that lots of American troops, bombers, and other military assets could stationed a mere 360 miles from Moscow. And Russia will have to devote more resources to the center heartland. All this is basic. Forget about what we can assume will happen; think about what *could* happen. Think about how much options America has to force Russia to re-orient itself.

No matter how it unfolds, Russia loses on net at least in the short-term, and probably loses big.

Rezekne (Latvia) - Moscow (Russia) - 674 km
Kharkiv (Ukraine) - Moscow (Russia) - 761 km

Anything else?

NATO is Dangerously Exposed in the Baltics
The current NATO military presence in the Baltics leaves a lot to be desired. It's doubtful, the merits of placing loads of US military assets in such an exposed area. It smacks of putting all our eggs in one basket.
If Ukraine is in NATO, on the other hand...it is in fact Kaliningrad that might be exposed.
I notice you have not at all refuted my points about options and what NATO *can* do if Ukraine is among its members.

  Well, that article was published on 2/02/22.   I'd say data since then shows that NATO was not so exposed.

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

“Russian security concerns” is a poor disguise for domination and control. They should not be given what they want.

I'm not advocating that we do what Russia wants. I'm establishing the reasoning for this war being rational from the Russian perspective.
If some hostile defensive alliance was expanding into our hemisphere, I'm sure we wouldn't want Mexico and Canada in it...

I think you are giving too much legitimacy to Russian accusations that they have legitimate concerns that the eastern bloc entering NATO is a threat to invade Russia verse the actual concern that the eastern bloc enters NATO means Russia can’t bully them into compliance

Well, I think it's self-evident that NATO expansion renders Russia even more of a second-rate power than before. And Russian leaders care about that.

And if Ukraine is in NATO, then that means that lots of American troops, bombers, and other military assets could stationed a mere 360 miles from Moscow. And Russia will have to devote more resources to the center heartland. All this is basic. Forget about what we can assume will happen; think about what *could* happen. Think about how much options America has to force Russia to re-orient itself.

No matter how it unfolds, Russia loses on net at least in the short-term, and probably loses big.

Rezekne (Latvia) - Moscow (Russia) - 674 km
Kharkiv (Ukraine) - Moscow (Russia) - 761 km

Anything else?

NATO is Dangerously Exposed in the Baltics
The current NATO military presence in the Baltics leaves a lot to be desired. It's doubtful, the merits of placing loads of US military assets in such an exposed area. It smacks of putting all our eggs in one basket.
If Ukraine is in NATO, on the other hand...it is in fact Kaliningrad that might be exposed.
I notice you have not at all refuted my points about options and what NATO *can* do if Ukraine is among its members.

  Well, that article was published on 2/02/22.   I'd say data since then shows that NATO was not so exposed.

How so?
If the idea is that the Russians were, well, overrated, I'll note it's very bad practice to just assume in planning that your opponent will make a ton of mistakes, and the US military brass know that.

[DINGO Joe]

“Russian security concerns” is a poor disguise for domination and control. They should not be given what they want.

I'm not advocating that we do what Russia wants. I'm establishing the reasoning for this war being rational from the Russian perspective.
If some hostile defensive alliance was expanding into our hemisphere, I'm sure we wouldn't want Mexico and Canada in it...

I think you are giving too much legitimacy to Russian accusations that they have legitimate concerns that the eastern bloc entering NATO is a threat to invade Russia verse the actual concern that the eastern bloc enters NATO means Russia can’t bully them into compliance

Well, I think it's self-evident that NATO expansion renders Russia even more of a second-rate power than before. And Russian leaders care about that.

And if Ukraine is in NATO, then that means that lots of American troops, bombers, and other military assets could stationed a mere 360 miles from Moscow. And Russia will have to devote more resources to the center heartland. All this is basic. Forget about what we can assume will happen; think about what *could* happen. Think about how much options America has to force Russia to re-orient itself.

No matter how it unfolds, Russia loses on net at least in the short-term, and probably loses big.

Rezekne (Latvia) - Moscow (Russia) - 674 km
Kharkiv (Ukraine) - Moscow (Russia) - 761 km

Anything else?

NATO is Dangerously Exposed in the Baltics
The current NATO military presence in the Baltics leaves a lot to be desired. It's doubtful, the merits of placing loads of US military assets in such an exposed area. It smacks of putting all our eggs in one basket.
If Ukraine is in NATO, on the other hand...it is in fact Kaliningrad that might be exposed.
I notice you have not at all refuted my points about options and what NATO *can* do if Ukraine is among its members.

  Well, that article was published on 2/02/22.   I'd say data since then shows that NATO was not so exposed.

How so?
If the idea is that the Russians were, well, overrated, I'll note it's very bad practice to just assume in planning that your opponent will make a ton of mistakes, and the US military brass know that.

Well, I think Russian performance goes well past a bunch of mistakes to a vast reassessment of capabilities

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

“Russian security concerns” is a poor disguise for domination and control. They should not be given what they want.

I'm not advocating that we do what Russia wants. I'm establishing the reasoning for this war being rational from the Russian perspective.
If some hostile defensive alliance was expanding into our hemisphere, I'm sure we wouldn't want Mexico and Canada in it...

I think you are giving too much legitimacy to Russian accusations that they have legitimate concerns that the eastern bloc entering NATO is a threat to invade Russia verse the actual concern that the eastern bloc enters NATO means Russia can’t bully them into compliance

Well, I think it's self-evident that NATO expansion renders Russia even more of a second-rate power than before. And Russian leaders care about that.

And if Ukraine is in NATO, then that means that lots of American troops, bombers, and other military assets could stationed a mere 360 miles from Moscow. And Russia will have to devote more resources to the center heartland. All this is basic. Forget about what we can assume will happen; think about what *could* happen. Think about how much options America has to force Russia to re-orient itself.

No matter how it unfolds, Russia loses on net at least in the short-term, and probably loses big.

Rezekne (Latvia) - Moscow (Russia) - 674 km
Kharkiv (Ukraine) - Moscow (Russia) - 761 km

Anything else?

NATO is Dangerously Exposed in the Baltics
The current NATO military presence in the Baltics leaves a lot to be desired. It's doubtful, the merits of placing loads of US military assets in such an exposed area. It smacks of putting all our eggs in one basket.
If Ukraine is in NATO, on the other hand...it is in fact Kaliningrad that might be exposed.
I notice you have not at all refuted my points about options and what NATO *can* do if Ukraine is among its members.

  Well, that article was published on 2/02/22.   I'd say data since then shows that NATO was not so exposed.

How so?
If the idea is that the Russians were, well, overrated, I'll note it's very bad practice to just assume in planning that your opponent will make a ton of mistakes, and the US military brass know that.

Well, I think Russian performance goes well past a bunch of mistakes to a vast reassessment of capabilities

That's a dangerous (veering too close to arrogant) path to go down. Especially because likely any actual shooting war in the Baltics would be more serious than this, making this war look like child's play.
Underestimate your enemy at your own risk. Respecting your opponent is respecting yourself by extension.

[urutzizu]

https://www.twitter.com/fneuhann/status/1520809379888566274

According to zdf an EU Oil embargo is now imminent. After Germany dropped it's resistance on the Weekend, the remaining opposition (H*****y, Slovakia, Austria) won't veto.

Just last week Borrell acknowledged that Von der Leyen's push to get Oil embargo into sixth sanctions package had failed at the hands of the member states (led by Germany). How is the turnaround explainable?

By Germany's efforts on reducing dependence of Russian energy at a dizzying speed:
- Imports of Russian oil down from around 35% to 12%.
- Imports of Russian gas down from 55% to around 35%.
- Imports of Russian coal down from 50% to about 8%.

As much as I dislike the rest of the Cabinet here, the work of Robert Habeck (economy minister) has been really good. Questions remain on the adjustment period and Gas embargo will take much longer. Energy embargo is also not just important for itself but also for another reason: Currently Energy dependence is preventing harsher financial sanctions: EU cannot impose full blocking sanctions on Sberbank and Gazprombank, like US and UK have done, or delist them from SWIFT (which as a Belgian company falls under EU jurisdiction) because it would prevent payment transactions for Russian energy. Also no secondary sanctions are possible. Full sanctions so far are limited to VTB and a bunch of others that make up about only 28% of Russian financial system. We should make it 100% to really fukk up their international trade, but this is necessary to do as soon as possible before they can shift to other systems and limit their exposure.

[Virginiá]

Rezekne (Latvia) - Moscow (Russia) - 674 km
Kharkiv (Ukraine) - Moscow (Russia) - 761 km

Anything else?

Yeah, this buffer state sh**t never made any sense since the Baltic states joined NATO. Like it or not, NATO is already at your doorstep, Russia. It's probably safe to say they don't have to worry much about Belarus, but whether Ukraine is or isn't in NATO doesn't have any major strategic effect on Russia, in practice. They aren't needed to park nukes or missile defense systems on Russia's border.

It's all about Russia's desire to continue dominating Eastern Europe. And I think I speak for many when I say that Russia has spent long enough destroying and holding back the countries along its borders.

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

Rezekne (Latvia) - Moscow (Russia) - 674 km
Kharkiv (Ukraine) - Moscow (Russia) - 761 km

Anything else?

Yeah, this buffer state sh**t never made any sense since the Baltic states joined NATO. Like it or not, NATO is already at your doorstep, Russia. It's probably safe to say they don't have to worry much about Belarus, but whether Ukraine is or isn't in NATO doesn't have any major strategic effect on Russia, in practice. They aren't needed to park nukes or missile defense systems on Russia's border.

It's all about Russia's desire to continue dominating Eastern Europe. And I think I speak for many when I say that Russia has spent long enough destroying and holding back the countries along its borders.

I think this is a very incomplete and oversimplified way of looking at it.
The length of the NATO-Russia border and the secondary impact that territorial possession has are at least as significant as whether Russia and NATO have a border at all. Ukraine in NATO rewrites the entire playbook and forces Russia to commit immensely more resources on defending its southern flank, all while it is more vulnerable from attack from both its southern portions and its northern ones.
Ask the Germans in the world wars how well it went for them that they had to defend themselves on two fronts...

[Virginiá]

That's a dangerous (veering too close to arrogant) path to go down. Especially because likely any actual shooting war in the Baltics would be more serious than this, making this war look like child's play.
Underestimate your enemy at your own risk. Respecting your opponent is respecting yourself by extension.

In theory Russia could be more of a threat, but the pervasive corruption, top-down command structure, lack of experience and widespread poverty has created a fighting force that simply isn't capable and isn't well-funded enough. What you get with an army run by impoverished young men and literal criminals is people who invade another country to go rob houses and grocery stores to keep themselves fed and send money back to their own country via fencing stolen goods. Or officers and other soldiers diverting their own fuel, rations and other supplies for their own personal benefit. This level of widespread corruption is significant enough to be a systemic problem in their military. Let's keep in mind that a potentially major reason why the initial invasion immediately hit speed bumps is because hundreds of millions of dollars meant to go towards creating a network of treasonous Ukrainian government officials who would turn on their country in the event of a Russian invasion never made it there. It was pocketed by corrupt Russian intelligence officials and other well-connected elites. A military can't run if everyone is sitting around skimming off the top to the point that there is barely anything left to actually go towards actual operations.

So yes, I would say DINGO is right.

[Virginiá]

I think this is a very incomplete and oversimplified way of looking at it.
The length of the NATO-Russia border and the secondary impact that territorial possession has are at least as significant as whether Russia and NATO have a border at all. Ukraine in NATO rewrites the entire playbook and forces Russia to commit immensely more resources on defending its southern flank, all while it is more vulnerable from attack from both its southern portions and its northern ones.
Ask the Germans in the world wars how well it went for them that they had to defend themselves on two fronts...

Who exactly is going to invade the Russian Federation, a country with the largest nuclear stockpile on Earth and an explicit military doctrine stating they will use nuclear weapons on an invasion force that threatens the Russian state's existence, or even simply an overwhelming conventional force?

What your saying is what Russia says, and it's ridiculous. It's not going to happen, if for no other reason than that no country is willing to trigger a guaranteed salvo of nuclear missiles aimed right at their population centers for a bunch of frozen tundra and fossil fuels in hard-to-extract regions of the continent.

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

I think this is a very incomplete and oversimplified way of looking at it.
The length of the NATO-Russia border and the secondary impact that territorial possession has are at least as significant as whether Russia and NATO have a border at all. Ukraine in NATO rewrites the entire playbook and forces Russia to commit immensely more resources on defending its southern flank, all while it is more vulnerable from attack from both its southern portions and its northern ones.
Ask the Germans in the world wars how well it went for them that they had to defend themselves on two fronts...

Who exactly is going to invade the Russian Federation, a country with the largest nuclear stockpile on Earth and an explicit military doctrine stating they will use nuclear weapons on an invasion force that threatens the Russian state's existence?

What your saying is what Russia says, and it's ridiculous. It's not going to happen, if for no other reason than that no country is willing to trigger a guaranteed salvo of nuclear missiles aimed right at their population centers.

Well, I was operating on the assumption that nukes were off the table. Militaries have to plan for all sorts of scenarios and countries have to be able to have some means of defense besides nuclear weapons (such as air and anti-air defense of urban centers, etc). Russia's leadership is right to think that Ukraine in NATO is a significant blow to its power. I think the leadership of the West broadly thinks likewise.

Furthermore, Russia has a strong chance of eventually not being in the position to prevent Ukrainian NATO membership. The realist case for Russia is to prevent this, but conversely, it means we should strongly consider getting Ukraine in it, on those same grounds.

The geopolitical map of Europe is changing as we speak.
EDIT: I almost certainly have been underestimating the readiness by which the Russians would use nukes though and was not aware that nukes were explicitly that prominent in Russian military doctrine. "The existence of the Russian state" absolutely would be threatened enough by such a movement of NATO forces you could expect a pretty bad outcome and enough justification to use nukes if things went south enough.

[Virginiá]

Well, I was operating on the assumption that nukes were off the table. Militaries have to plan for all sorts of scenarios and countries have to be able to have some means of defense besides nuclear weapons (such as air and anti-air defense of urban centers, etc). Russia's leadership is right to think that Ukraine in NATO is a significant blow to its power. I think the leadership of the West broadly thinks likewise.

Furthermore, Russia has a strong chance of eventually not being in the position to prevent Ukrainian NATO membership. The realist case for Russia is to prevent this, but conversely, it means we should strongly consider getting Ukraine in it, on those same grounds.

The geopolitical map of Europe is changing as we speak.

Russia sees NATO in former/current regions making up the Commonwealth of Independent States as a blow to its power because it removes war and violence as an option for them to exert influence over otherwise unwilling countries. This isn't about a fear of an invasion of Russia, it's literally the other way around. Russia has spent the past 100+ years seeking to maintain or build an empire for itself. Even in their greatly reduced state now, they are still invading other countries for influence and power.

Nuclear weapons changed everything about warfare. If this were the early 20th century and you said the same thing, you'd have a really good point because yes, they would absolutely have to shore up their borders, and "buffer states" would indeed be useful to protect against an invading force. But we're in the 21st century and Russia is a nuclear state with so many active nuclear weapons that they could completely obliterate an invading army and their entire home country before they ever finish crossing the border. Everyone knows this. That's why no one is itching to invade Russia. It sounds very simplistic but the reality is, it is that simple. The only countries who truly need to worry about this are non-nuclear countries, or countries with such few nuclear weapons or limited delivery capabilities that they could be taken off the table with a single quick strike.

[TiltsAreUnderrated]

Skip

Russian bear has not logged into his account since February 23

Thanks. I didn't know that. This time, from February 24 to my injury, I did not follow the forum very often, so I missed it. It will be necessary to follow, maybe someday he will appear here.

Skip

I don't recall seeing Russian Bear since this war began. Maybe he was jailed for taking part in an anti-war protest or something; I dunno exactly, no one knows.

Thanks. I doubt it. I do not remember exactly, but I think he once wrote that he lives in Belarus. But I'm not sure about that. In any case, there may be many reasons, at least - the intensification of repression for browsing certain foreign sites, who knows. Although I would like to hear his comments on the war and all these events.

He said it wasn’t happening, then in the final few days, he said he believed it was happening and was opposed. Then he disappeared.

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

Well, I was operating on the assumption that nukes were off the table. Militaries have to plan for all sorts of scenarios and countries have to be able to have some means of defense besides nuclear weapons (such as air and anti-air defense of urban centers, etc). Russia's leadership is right to think that Ukraine in NATO is a significant blow to its power. I think the leadership of the West broadly thinks likewise.

Furthermore, Russia has a strong chance of eventually not being in the position to prevent Ukrainian NATO membership. The realist case for Russia is to prevent this, but conversely, it means we should strongly consider getting Ukraine in it, on those same grounds.

The geopolitical map of Europe is changing as we speak.

Russia sees NATO in former/current regions making up the Commonwealth of Independent States as a blow to its power because it removes war and violence as an option for them to exert influence over otherwise unwilling countries. This isn't about a fear of an invasion of Russia, it's literally the other way around. Russia has spent the past 100+ years seeking to maintain or build an empire for itself. Even in their greatly reduced state now, they are still invading other countries for influence and power.

Nuclear weapons changed everything about warfare. If this were the early 20th century and you said the same thing, you'd have a really good point because yes, they would absolutely have to shore up their borders, and "buffer states" would indeed be useful to protect against an invading force. But we're in the 21st century and Russia is a nuclear state with so many active nuclear weapons that they could completely obliterate an invading army and their entire home country before they ever finish crossing the border. Everyone knows this. That's why no one is itching to invade Russia. It sounds very simplistic but the reality is, it is that simple. The only countries who truly need to worry about this are non-nuclear countries, or countries with such few nuclear weapons or limited delivery capabilities that they could be taken off the table with a single quick strike.

It could be I'm looking at this specific facet of this in too nuanced a way. I guess it comes down to how readily they would use nuclear weapons.

Which raises a question: say we have a best-case scenario for Ukraine and they press forward and even expand into Russian territory. What does Russia do?

[Oryxslayer]

Well, I was operating on the assumption that nukes were off the table. Militaries have to plan for all sorts of scenarios and countries have to be able to have some means of defense besides nuclear weapons (such as air and anti-air defense of urban centers, etc). Russia's leadership is right to think that Ukraine in NATO is a significant blow to its power. I think the leadership of the West broadly thinks likewise.

Furthermore, Russia has a strong chance of eventually not being in the position to prevent Ukrainian NATO membership. The realist case for Russia is to prevent this, but conversely, it means we should strongly consider getting Ukraine in it, on those same grounds.

The geopolitical map of Europe is changing as we speak.

Russia sees NATO in former/current regions making up the Commonwealth of Independent States as a blow to its power because it removes war and violence as an option for them to exert influence over otherwise unwilling countries. This isn't about a fear of an invasion of Russia, it's literally the other way around. Russia has spent the past 100+ years seeking to maintain or build an empire for itself. Even in their greatly reduced state now, they are still invading other countries for influence and power.

Nuclear weapons changed everything about warfare. If this were the early 20th century and you said the same thing, you'd have a really good point because yes, they would absolutely have to shore up their borders, and "buffer states" would indeed be useful to protect against an invading force. But we're in the 21st century and Russia is a nuclear state with so many active nuclear weapons that they could completely obliterate an invading army and their entire home country before they ever finish crossing the border. Everyone knows this. That's why no one is itching to invade Russia. It sounds very simplistic but the reality is, it is that simple. The only countries who truly need to worry about this are non-nuclear countries, or countries with such few nuclear weapons or limited delivery capabilities that they could be taken off the table with a single quick strike.

This is correct. But Ukraine still poses a serious danger to modern Russia, just in the exact opposite way that Phil is looking at it. It is a danger not of realpolitik and buffer zones, but a danger of information and culture, things Russia has/is exploited/ing elsewhere and knows just how dangerous they can be in the internet age.

A significant component of the Russian leadership and their population never accepted Ukraine as a thing. Ukrainian and Belarussian to them are just dialects of the Russian language, with what we now call Russian once distinguished as it's own "Great Russian" dialect of the whole. The separation of the three is a crime of nationalism.

So Ukraine going it's own way, towards liberal Democracy and the EU, makes these people scared. It shows that despite Russia having few Democratic traditions, a "Russian" people can achieve democracy and civil liberties. It shows that the great debate which began with Peter the Great was a lie. Russia does not need to achieve its own greatness and success by looking to both the east and west and finding what worked for her, success was also possible within the arms of the western system. Which means much of Russia's past self-inflected sufferings, scars like 19th century serfdom which is believed to have been so entrenched that it was always going to last so late and be so hard to dismantle, could have been avoided by following in the footsteps of other continental powers. It shows the Russian people that they do not need strongman to survive.

For these ideologues, who view Ukraine in this way, every day it succeeds is a threat to their power. It cannot be allowed to succeed, it must be made to look eastwards, or be at war with its own people, or its success is a lie and is so corrupted by western life that Russia can roll over her. Every day Ukraine continues to successfully resist scares these people's ideology, for it continues to prove their whole worldview wrong. This is why we see those on Russian TV who say Russia has already accomplished her "goals" in the Donbass and along the coast, and should now negotiate, are constantly shouted down. Because those with this nationalistic worldview see such a deal as a Ukrainian victory - the liberal regime still stands now stronger than ever.

The initial goal was regime change, forcing Ukraine to look east, and crushing the liberal outpost. This for the nationalistic leadership is still and can be the the only end goal for them, which is why peace can only come with a full exodus of Russian troops and an abandonment of war goals, full Ukrainian collapse, or the Moscow regime making a blunder that endangers stability on the homefront. In many ways, it is becoming a repeat of the Russo-Japanese war: a struggle prompted by an ideology which was quickly shattered, but can only be ended by civilian inability to tolerate increasing failure and hardship.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Rezekne (Latvia) - Moscow (Russia) - 674 km
Kharkiv (Ukraine) - Moscow (Russia) - 761 km

Anything else?

Yeah, this buffer state sh**t never made any sense since the Baltic states joined NATO. Like it or not, NATO is already at your doorstep, Russia. It's probably safe to say they don't have to worry much about Belarus, but whether Ukraine is or isn't in NATO doesn't have any major strategic effect on Russia, in practice. They aren't needed to park nukes or missile defense systems on Russia's border.

It's all about Russia's desire to continue dominating Eastern Europe. And I think I speak for many when I say that Russia has spent long enough destroying and holding back the countries along its borders.

Norway always touched Russia, but these are more populated areas.

[The Mikado]

Russian television knows Britain has nukes too, right?

https://twitter.com/francis_scarr/status/1520846423629213699?s=20&t=_c7CE-mC...

At least these empty threats are eminently memeable:
https://twitter.com/NotWoofers/status/1520870567729147904?s=20&t=_c7CE-mCsmh...

More to the point, they do know that Britain's (especially) nukes are literally all on submarines and don't care whether or not the UK homeland has been blown to smithereens because they're a second strike force? The fact that Sarmat is an incredibly fast missile just means that (even ignoring the USA for a second) the Russians can devastate Britain and spend about 6 or 7 minutes celebrating before the British counterattack hits.

Also, Sarmat carries 10 warheads, which is far far far from enough to wipe out the UK with one missile, but that's just quibbling and clearly nothing in this changes if he'd said like three or four missiles instead of one.

[The Mikado]

Putin: spends the pandemic going ahead and writes a f**king 15 page long essay titled "On the Historical Unity of Russians and Ukrainians" as a sitting head of state who presumably has other things to do than write essays. http://en.kremlin.ru/events/president/news/66181 Gives a big hour long speech in which he spends most of it talking about Soviet nationalities policies of the 1920s and very little of it talking about NATO. Has a victory statement released prematurely two days into the invasion boasting about uniting the three East Slavic peoples, Russians, Belarusians, and Ukrainians, under the same roof again.

Tim Turner: "Is this about NATO?"

No, it's about Russian desire to subjugate and assimilate Ukraine! How f**king hard is this to understand? Putin is saying it in blatant terms and you just run off to this insane conspiracy theory about NATO expansion rather than accept that this is a war about imperial expansion, which is what Putin's been saying it was for literal years now.