Is it possible Russia is completely bluffing?

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

I just realized there's a 3rd options besides the totally not do anything to Ukraine's territory and a clear invasion of Ukraine. It's the let the "independent" separatists do the fighting while a large Russian military prevents Ukraine from being able to respond. See Hawaii 1893.

[Meclazine for Israel]

Not according to Joe Biden:

Joe's Prediction

https://youtu.be/hnQR7ZinhTE

[🦀🎂🦀🎂]

My guess is that Putin is trying to humiliate the US for crying wolf and devastate Ukraine's economy with panic so that its pro-Western government loses favor with the people in the long term.

Seems like a very stupid idea given humiliating Zelensky, a dove, would benefit Poroshenko, who is far more aligned with NATO.

[Statilius the Epicurean]

My guess is that Putin is trying to humiliate the US for crying wolf and devastate Ukraine's economy with panic so that its pro-Western government loses favor with the people in the long term.

Seems like a very stupid idea given humiliating Zelensky, a dove, would benefit Poroshenko, who is far more aligned with NATO.

The bigger problem with that theory is it assumes that making US intelligence leaks look a bit silly is more important to Putin than material realities such as Ukraine's strategic orientation. It's "my social media discourse = real life" brain. However appealing the idea may be to online leftists, the President of Russia is not going to move hundreds of thousands of troops around just to own the statements of US officials.  

[Agonized-Statism]

My guess is that Putin is trying to humiliate the US for crying wolf and devastate Ukraine's economy with panic so that its pro-Western government loses favor with the people in the long term.

Seems like a very stupid idea given humiliating Zelensky, a dove, would benefit Poroshenko, who is far more aligned with NATO.

The bigger problem with that theory is it assumes that making US intelligence leaks look a bit silly is more important to Putin than material realities such as Ukraine's strategic orientation. It's "my social media discourse = real life" brain. However appealing the idea may be to online leftists, the President of Russia is not going to move hundreds of thousands of troops around just to own the statements of US officials.  

Not really, I don't do politics on social media so that's a weird ad hominem. The idea would be destabilizing Ukraine first and confusing the West second. Putin would have a lot less to gain with war.

[Statilius the Epicurean]

My guess is that Putin is trying to humiliate the US for crying wolf and devastate Ukraine's economy with panic so that its pro-Western government loses favor with the people in the long term.

Seems like a very stupid idea given humiliating Zelensky, a dove, would benefit Poroshenko, who is far more aligned with NATO.

The bigger problem with that theory is it assumes that making US intelligence leaks look a bit silly is more important to Putin than material realities such as Ukraine's strategic orientation. It's "my social media discourse = real life" brain. However appealing the idea may be to online leftists, the President of Russia is not going to move hundreds of thousands of troops around just to own the statements of US officials.  

Not really, I don't do politics on social media so that's a weird ad hominem. The idea would be destabilizing Ukraine first and confusing the West second. Putin would have a lot less to gain with war.

Russia can't destabilise Ukraine with troop positions alone. Those troops camped on the border will degrade in combat effectiveness so the threat will dissipate over time. So in fact the longer Russia threatens the less people will consider an invasion likely and the less destabilised Ukraine will be.

[Agonized-Statism]

Russia can't destabilise Ukraine with troop positions alone. Those troops camped on the border will degrade in combat effectiveness so the threat will dissipate over time. So in fact the longer Russia threatens the less people will consider an invasion likely and the less destabilised Ukraine will be.

Then why the urging from the Ukrainian government to its citizens not to panic? These threats could be aiming, however successfully, to crash their economy. But hey, what do I know, apparently I'm just trying to "dunk" on someone.

[Statilius the Epicurean]

Russia can't destabilise Ukraine with troop positions alone. Those troops camped on the border will degrade in combat effectiveness so the threat will dissipate over time. So in fact the longer Russia threatens the less people will consider an invasion likely and the less destabilised Ukraine will be.

Then why the urging from the Ukrainian government to its citizens not to panic? These threats could be aiming, however successfully, to crash their economy. But hey, what do I know, apparently I'm just trying to "dunk" on someone.

The Ukrainian government containing panic merely shows the inability of indirect Russian pressure to achieve its goals...it's why destabilisation isn't a viable threat.

[Agonized-Statism]

Russia can't destabilise Ukraine with troop positions alone. Those troops camped on the border will degrade in combat effectiveness so the threat will dissipate over time. So in fact the longer Russia threatens the less people will consider an invasion likely and the less destabilised Ukraine will be.

Then why the urging from the Ukrainian government to its citizens not to panic? These threats could be aiming, however successfully, to crash their economy. But hey, what do I know, apparently I'm just trying to "dunk" on someone.

The Ukrainian government containing panic merely shows the inability of indirect Russian pressure to achieve its goals...it's why destabilisation isn't a viable threat.

Not sure I follow your logic. Ukraine is urging calm because they've contained the panic, and this is supposed to debunk the idea that Russia could be attempting successfully or not to destabilize the country?

[Statilius the Epicurean]

Russia can't destabilise Ukraine with troop positions alone. Those troops camped on the border will degrade in combat effectiveness so the threat will dissipate over time. So in fact the longer Russia threatens the less people will consider an invasion likely and the less destabilised Ukraine will be.

Then why the urging from the Ukrainian government to its citizens not to panic? These threats could be aiming, however successfully, to crash their economy. But hey, what do I know, apparently I'm just trying to "dunk" on someone.

The Ukrainian government containing panic merely shows the inability of indirect Russian pressure to achieve its goals...it's why destabilisation isn't a viable threat.

Not sure I follow your logic. Ukraine is urging calm because they've contained the panic, and this is supposed to debunk the idea that Russia could be attempting successfully or not to destabilize the country?

Yes, because as the Ukrainian government's actions have shown it has no route to achieving Russia's political goals.

[Agonized-Statism]

Yes, because as the Ukrainian government's actions have shown it has no route to achieving Russia's political goals.

You didn't explain urging calm = achieving calm, but okay, we'll go with that.

[Statilius the Epicurean]

Yes, because as the Ukrainian government's actions have shown it has no route to achieving Russia's political goals.

You didn't explain urging calm = achieving calm, but okay, we'll go with that.

Well that's what's happened. Ukraine central bank has stabilised the economy thus far, and if the US intelligence warnings pass without anything happening then the threat will begin to dissipate from here.

Anyway, with the amount of forward deployed units I expect a Russian invasion is imminent. But we'll see.

[Vaccinated Russian Bear]

America conducts naval exercises off the coast of North Korea all the time but nobody acts like the 7th Fleet hanging around the Sea of Japan indicates imminent invasion.

It would not happen because North Korea has nuclear weapons. Ukraine made a mistake when it gave theirs up in the 90s in exchange for the Budapest memorandum which turned out to be a worthless piece of paper.

If Ukraine is unable to join NATO, then it should start a new nuclear programme. And I'm not even joking. If NATO membership is out of the table, nukes will be the only option to prevent future Russian aggression. The only ironclad guarantee that it would not happen, anyways.

Zelensky seems to agree with me:

https://twitter.com/KyivIndependent/status/1495078648868655111

Exactly, and I think the absolute disaster a Russian invasion of Ukraine would spell for the cause of global nuclear nonproliferation has been a very underreported angle of this crisis. What incentive would any non-superpower have in the future to give up their nukes if Russia shows that deals to do so mean nothing?

I think that train has sailed long ago. Does Libya sound familiar?

[Vaccinated Russian Bear]

Yes, because as the Ukrainian government's actions have shown it has no route to achieving Russia's political goals.

You didn't explain urging calm = achieving calm, but okay, we'll go with that.

Well that's what's happened. Ukraine central bank has stabilised the economy thus far, and if the US intelligence warnings pass without anything happening then the threat will begin to dissipate from here.

Just couple of days ago Ukraine claimed, that fearmongering cost them $2-3 bln a month. Obviously, they have all the incentives to overblown the real cost, but still.

https://time.com/6149567/ukraine-russia-culture-economy-impact/
The Threat of a Russian Invasion Is Crushing Ukraine's Economy and Culture

President Volodymyr Zelensky, who was elected three years ago on a promise to stand up to Russia, has repeatedly appealed to Western leaders to dial down the panic, even asking President Joe Biden to visit Kyiv in order to “stabilize the situation.” Parliamentarian David Arakhamia, from Zelensky’s Servant of the People party, said the talk of war is costing the Ukrainian economy around $2-$3 billion a month. Speaking on Monday on private TV channel 1+1, he said “when someone decides to move the embassy to Lviv, they must understand that such news will cost the Ukrainian economy.”

A survey by the European Business Association in late January—two weeks before Washington warned that a ground invasion was near inevitable—found that 17% of over 130 member companies in Ukraine were already considering relocating to the west of the country, while 10% thought of leaving the country altogether.

[Statilius the Epicurean]

Yes, because as the Ukrainian government's actions have shown it has no route to achieving Russia's political goals.

You didn't explain urging calm = achieving calm, but okay, we'll go with that.

Well that's what's happened. Ukraine central bank has stabilised the economy thus far, and if the US intelligence warnings pass without anything happening then the threat will begin to dissipate from here.

Just couple of days ago Ukraine claimed, that fearmongering cost them $2-3 bln a month. Obviously, they have all the incentives to overblown the real cost, but still.

https://time.com/6149567/ukraine-russia-culture-economy-impact/
The Threat of a Russian Invasion Is Crushing Ukraine's Economy and Culture

President Volodymyr Zelensky, who was elected three years ago on a promise to stand up to Russia, has repeatedly appealed to Western leaders to dial down the panic, even asking President Joe Biden to visit Kyiv in order to “stabilize the situation.” Parliamentarian David Arakhamia, from Zelensky’s Servant of the People party, said the talk of war is costing the Ukrainian economy around $2-$3 billion a month. Speaking on Monday on private TV channel 1+1, he said “when someone decides to move the embassy to Lviv, they must understand that such news will cost the Ukrainian economy.”

A survey by the European Business Association in late January—two weeks before Washington warned that a ground invasion was near inevitable—found that 17% of over 130 member companies in Ukraine were already considering relocating to the west of the country, while 10% thought of leaving the country altogether.

Yeah, that's quite manageable considering the circumstances. Ukraine had foreign currency reserves of $29bn in January. And the point is that Russia cannot sustain its current level of deployment for a long period without losing combat effectiveness (and people will stop believing US intel warnings). So the threat is time-limited.

If Russia was bluffing/or following a 'strategy of tension' then I don't see how the current level of deployments from bases to forward positions on the border makes sense. It means that if they don't use those units they will have to de-escalate them soon - likely too soon to win concessions. (It of course makes perfect sense if an invasion is happening within days)

[Vaccinated Russian Bear]

Yes, because as the Ukrainian government's actions have shown it has no route to achieving Russia's political goals.

You didn't explain urging calm = achieving calm, but okay, we'll go with that.

Well that's what's happened. Ukraine central bank has stabilised the economy thus far, and if the US intelligence warnings pass without anything happening then the threat will begin to dissipate from here.

Just couple of days ago Ukraine claimed, that fearmongering cost them $2-3 bln a month. Obviously, they have all the incentives to overblown the real cost, but still.

https://time.com/6149567/ukraine-russia-culture-economy-impact/
The Threat of a Russian Invasion Is Crushing Ukraine's Economy and Culture

President Volodymyr Zelensky, who was elected three years ago on a promise to stand up to Russia, has repeatedly appealed to Western leaders to dial down the panic, even asking President Joe Biden to visit Kyiv in order to “stabilize the situation.” Parliamentarian David Arakhamia, from Zelensky’s Servant of the People party, said the talk of war is costing the Ukrainian economy around $2-$3 billion a month. Speaking on Monday on private TV channel 1+1, he said “when someone decides to move the embassy to Lviv, they must understand that such news will cost the Ukrainian economy.”

A survey by the European Business Association in late January—two weeks before Washington warned that a ground invasion was near inevitable—found that 17% of over 130 member companies in Ukraine were already considering relocating to the west of the country, while 10% thought of leaving the country altogether.

Yeah, that's quite manageable considering the circumstances. Ukraine had foreign currency reserves of $29bn in January. And the point is that Russia cannot sustain its current level of deployment for a long period without losing combat effectiveness (and people will stop believing US intel warnings). So the threat is time-limited.

The second part (about businesses leaving) is as important in short term, and the consequences (for Ukraine) will be much more important in long term - permanent[ish] damage. It also might accelerate (or not) because of it becoming a vicious circle - the more business start to move, the more become likely to follow.

Like, I'm not saying Putin will certainly succeed, but it's quite easy to see him reaching Ukraine's/Ze's pain threshold without outright invasion.

If Russia was bluffing/or following a 'strategy of tension' then I don't see how the current level of deployments from bases to forward positions on the border makes sense. It means that if they don't use those units they will have to de-escalate them soon - likely too soon to win concessions. (It of course makes perfect sense if an invasion is happening within days)

Then why bother with diplomati bs?

To me, it's the opposite. You want to have as much power as possible to get as big leverage as possible. As I has been saying before, I don't really see any difficulties to maintain them in couple of months or more, but I'm not a military expert, either.

[Statilius the Epicurean]

I'm not a military expert either, but it's what the military experts I've been reading have said and it makes intuitive sense: soldiers camping out on frozen fields away from their bases for weeks or months on end will mean lower morale, more disruption to training and greater strain on maintaining equipment. Of course it's not physically impossible for Russia to keep troops forward deployed in this state for a long time, but not using them when their combat effectiveness is declining it would be a signal to other countries that Russia didn't decide to attack when it was optimal, the threat of force is becoming less credible, and so they will be less likely to give concessions.

I think an optimal strategy of tension would have been a lower number of troops mostly in their permanent bases with the main threatening movement being that of equipment with skeleton crews (so what we saw in late Jan or with the Zapad 2021 exercise last year). That I think would be enough of a coercive threat to Ukraine and more sustainable over a period of months, and you could ratchet it quickly by moving in personnel if needed. Rn we're so far past that point.

Anyway as you know I have problems with Russia's negotiating strategy more broadly if it really is trying to win concessions. I don't think the "trying to extract diplomatic wins" interpretation of e.g. the draft treaty proposals or Putin's discussions with Macron makes any sense at all.