Given that I’ve made quite a few predictions about the war in Ukraine and how it would unfold, it’s a good time look back on them and draw some lessons. My record is mixed, having predicted that the war would happen but being, so far, mistaken about how strong Ukrainian resistance would be.
One thing you didn’t predict, understandably, is the “Twitterization” of the conflict.
Suppose that you set out in 2019 to predict how governments would respond to the next pandemic. How would you do this? Presumably you’d look at their responses to past pandemics, estimate the probable severity of a virus, follow the latest public health discussions and the latest vaccine technology, etc. Would that exercise lead you to predict what happened over the last two years? No, not even close.
What happened was that people in early 2020 scrolled and tweeted their way into a frenzy. This deeply affected those in leadership roles, partly because they were responding to their constituents and partly because they themselves spend a lot of time scrolling and tweeting. As a result, the pandemic response was far more extreme and far different than someone in 2019 would have predicted.
Just as COVID-19 is the first pandemic in the Age of Twitter, so the Ukraine invasion is, in some sense, the first war in the Age of Twitter. As it unfolds, we are seeing many disturbing parallels to the events of early 2020. People are rapidly normalizing once-fringe ideas like a NATO-enforced no-fly zone, direct US conflict with Russia, regime change in Moscow, and even, incredibly, the use of nuclear weapons. Just as with COVID, we’re seeing the rapid abandonment of longstanding Western policies. The overnight flips on German defense spending and SWIFT are like the overturning of conventional public health policies on masking, lockdowns, and so on.
The emotionalism and recklessness we see in the Western professional class right now are producing an extremely dangerous situation. Let’s hope that it can be de-escalated before we get into a world war. And in making future predictions, we should acknowledge that the hyperconnected world brings with it new tail risks produced by rapid online escalation.
twitter has turned western elites, esp in media, politics and academia, into perpetually addled infants who are addicted to public displays of piety and can only respond to any situation with an angry tantrum designed to get them the most attention and make them seem the most "moral."
twitter has made it impossible for our supposed thinking classes to reason clearly, to process all factors and make intelligent assessments, basically to be rational adults.
the difference between our political discourse pre- and post-Twitter is like the difference between someone before and after their crack addiction.
You’re giving too much credit to Twitter. In the case of the invasion of Ukraine, both the cold calculations of self-interest and populist outrage align in the same direction.
Do you suppose Senator Lindsey Graham (pre twitter) would have openly advocated assassinating President Vladimir Putin? Neither do I. Like diarrhea, he can't help himself.
Yes, Twitter is definitely to blame. And not G's knowledge of drone strikes that normalised assasination... The first hypothesis you think of just always be correct! Otherwise thinking would be *hard*..
I can't help but feel you're doing the thing where you describe a pre-internet phenomenon that now occurs on the internet and attributing it to the internet. To borrow a Matthew Yglesias example, now we organize dinner parties by e-mail, but dinner parties were as or more common before e-mails. "Popular outrage at the deprivations of X against Y shaping policy" has been happening forever. It might be a little faster now, to the extent newspaper photos took more time than viral videos.
To some extent, but the new medium also generates new behavior. Your example hints at that; if there are fewer dinner parties than there were before the internet, that's partly because people are using the internet to spend their evenings watching Netflix and browsing Facebook rather than going out to see people.
COVID-19 as a social and political phenomenon would have been dramatically different if the virus had emerged in 2000, before social media existed. Likewise, I fear, this war.
It's not just the speed of seeing deprivation but the speed at which a popular response can be generated has outstripped the speed at which people can consider a course of action.
By the time you read or saw something in a newspaper it used to be hours or even days old, and the level to which individuals could coordinate and communicate responses was also very limited.
NATO expansion is a pretext for the deranged emperor to extend the reach of his mafia state. Historically, Ukraine was not a country, but Putin forged it. If Russia were attractive as a partner, many Ukrainians would support getting closer and perhaps establishing a confederation. But this is over now. The hatred against Russia is at the level not seen since the war against Nazis. If you could understand the pull of freedom and the disgust with Russia among the Ukrainians before the invasion, you’d have made a much better prediction about how strong they’d resist the invaders. Ukraine has already won since the now have a leader who, dead or alive, is a powerful symbol of resistance against the ugly force and the catalyst of national unity and readiness to sacrifice to keep national freedom. And plz stop talking about NATO expansion as the reason for this invasion and stop pushing for appeasement of the mafia state.
To be honest, even back in the early 2010s, I would have predicted that Russia simply wouldn't be able to compete with the EU for Ukrainians' hearts and minds in the long(er)-run. And even back then, the younger generations of Ukrainians were much more pro-EU than they were pro-EEU. (EEU = Eurasian Economic Union.)
Russian nationalists like Anatoly Karlin might like to talk about economies of scale, but when you're going to be the junior partner in any confederation in any case, why join a 200-250 million-strong confederation when you can join a 500+ million-strong confederation instead?
WOW. there is so much to respond to and I did check out Anatoly Karlin profile and for sure I do not know what to make of him so I won't say anything: he listed transhumanism on his blog so I am stopping right there on that: However, your comment is so compelling in its secularist outlook I am floored. This is not about Russia competing for Ukrainian hearts and minds. Russians and Ukrainians are both very proud and nationalistic with regard to their cultures. While both countries are historically Orthodox and in (Christian Orthodox) I have been to the Holy Trinity Russian Church (my Big Fat Greek Wedding).in Toronto to take care a friend's mother RIP.. who was from Belarus with her husband, who was an engineer who helped design the church. I have spent YEARS with both Ukrainians and Russians who are intermarried but even here in the U.S maintain SEPARATE CHURCHES and even actually establish enclaves of Russian speaking only areas and Ukrainian speaking only enclaves. The concept of "assimilation" or melting pot is almost nonexistent. This is not anecdotal: there is a HUGE cultural divide between Russians and Ukrainians.. and since I am of European descent but American it always sort of amazed me. I went to huge diplomatic parties (here in DC) I don't want to mention names where all of them were in attendance; both sides (lubricated might I add) seemed to be mixing well but half the room spoke Russian and the other half Ukraine and they usually always spoke both languages and well as English. There always sort of "unspoken" subtle underlying tension. You know what I mean. From my perspective and I mean this has gone on for 50 years .. and I still know many of these people (I was the youngest there) and many have passed it was the UKRAINIANS who at all times maintained their stance of SEPARATISM because they believed that they were the bread basket of the world. One dear lady, Oxana, RIP many years ago, God bless her; and I helped take care of her and husband until their deaths because they lived near me in the country in Virginia, swore that the Garden of Eden was in Ukraine! The nationalistic pride of the Ukrainians is palpable and in all my years I have never met any other group of people who were more adamant about their unique culture and place in the World. The Russians know this as well. Ukraine to this day as shown by the maps now shown to the world has huge areas of Ethnic Russians, but still maintain separate communities and churches. The EUROPEAN UNION was established by EUROPEANS for EUROPEANS after WW with the Baltic and Nordic States being added in after Soviet Union was defeated by U.S In the Cold War (details sketchy) I have real issues with broad sweeping generalities discussing what the hearts and minds of Ukrainians or even Russians feel about Europe or the EU. As dual German citizen I went to Germany after the fall of the wall in Berlin to visit my living family there and you may remember that Berlin sits in the middle of former Soviet Controlled East Germany. Germany remembers very vividly as well as other counties what happened to their economies and people under Soviet Rule. I saw it first-hand. I will tell you this: Americans think very differently than you can possibly imagine when it comes to national pride or culture, in part, the reason that Trump's America First was so amazingly successful is that it gave validity to Americanism and a sense of our own culture which was established by the Constitution and Founding Fathers which tapped into raw and previously unspoken cultural pride which Americans who are first and second generation like me and my family (German, Italian, French. English mixed bag) who assimilated into America.. and some like me, my dad was from Pennsylvania and fought for America in WW2, 23 years. Despite all of that Patriotic fervor there were people like me (a scientist) who did hear parts of the truth as told by parents and grand parents (those who listened) about the LIES that the entire WORLD including America continues to purvey with regard to National Security, the manic secrecy of a government which is in theory answerable to the governed! My own sons were told the truth about everything I could tell including I never burdened with them social mass delusions like Santa Claus for which my son who is a computer developer thanks me for every year. Well.. that is all I got for now. :) The podiatrist removed a big chunk of toenail that I dropped a brick on.. (for real) AND IT HURTS.. going to ice it elevate it :) and I need to rest.. VERY INTERESTING folks here. I realize I am much older than a lot of people posting .. just giving you my intergenerational perspective :) and I am a Christian as well. well post on another site if I my foot stops hurting tonight! very thought provoking and interesting posts .. for sure.
Exactly right: Americans are being driven by the left-wing agnostic and atheists who do not understand that many wars and long-term conflicts including Islam, for the last thousand plus years of conflict originate from "faith/religion" therefore: money and power over people. I don't need to say more. I am a Christian and Berean and student of the Bible for many decades, but I was raised Catholic, and I appreciate my early teaching teachings; became a Christian in my early 20s.
Yeah, Ukraine was always the EU's for the taking, but the desire was not fully there--until now, very possibly. Yes, the EU did sign an Association Agreement with Ukraine in 2014, but only right now is full EU membership for Ukraine being discussed, ironically thanks to Vladimir Putin himself making the decision to invade Ukraine.
I'm realizing now that if nothing else, the promise of the EU and massive subsidies from the West (powered by its newfound sympathy for Ukraine) will eliminate what hope Russia might have for integrating at least part of Ukraine into it.
If Russia annexed Eastern Ukraine (outside the Donbas), winning hearts and minds would require, besides forgetting about this war, somehow economically outperforming a massively-subsidized Western Ukraine, and that doesn't seem possible. So East Ukrainians would perpetually have their eyes turned West and basically be in the same position as East Germans, except without even an ideology like Communism to justify their inclusion in Russia.
I think that 2014 was a golden time for Russia to test the extent of separatist sentiments in Ukraine. Back then, there was a revolution in Ukraine and a lawless removal of Ukraine's President (albeit due to Ukrainian protesters feeling that he had lost his right to rule after he used brutal violence against them). Yet even back then, with all of the chaos in Kiev, only Crimea and a huge part of the Donbass were actually willing to secede from Ukraine. The rest of Ukraine remained united. Any separatism in places like Kharkiv was quickly flushed out before it could become a threat. And even the Donbass separatist movement really only got going after a lot of Russian volunteers, weapons, and money were sent there--though there there was more local support for things like federalization than even in Kharkiv.
Over the last decade or so, I have seen Russia and/or Russians consistently overestimate its abilities and appeal in Ukraine:
-Early 2010s: Regathering of the Russian lands: https://www.unz.com/akarlin/regathering-russian-lands/ Basically, the Russian belief was that because the EU was ailing (Eurozone crisis, et cetera) while Eurasia was dynamic, Ukraine would inevitably be pulled into Eurasia's orbit, especially considering that the EU didn't actually want Ukraine back then, other than of course to sign an Association Agreement with it (which AFAIK Tunisia, Egypt, et cetera also have).
-2014: After the Maidan Revolution, there was speculation that there could be separatist uprisings throughout all of Novorossiya. But they only occurred in Crimea and the Donbass while the rest of Novorossiya stayed quiet. And rather than agree to federalization on Russia's terms (giving the Donbass veto power over Ukrainian EU and NATO membership), Ukraine preferred to de facto indefinitely lose the separatist-controlled Donbass, even if it didn't quite so openly say this.
-2022: Russia invades Ukraine. Some Russians expect Kiev to fall within 48 hours. It's already almost a week and Kiev still hasn't fallen.
FWIW, I do expect Russia to eventually win the conventional stage of this current war in Ukraine if it decides to fight it to a finish. But dealing with a subsequent Ukrainian insurgency, sabotage, et cetera could be quite problematic. Not to mention the possibility of a Ukrainian equivalent to Poland's 1980s Solidarity movement, with massive strikes, et cetera.
Fertility rates do matter for an insurgency but they're more crucial when the base population is small. All else being equal, it's easier for a 150 million-strong country to subjugate a 5 million-strong country than it is for this 150 million-strong country to subjugate a 35 million-strong country simply because the 5 million-strong country will run out of warm bodies for an insurgency much faster than the 35 million-strong country will. Thus, fertility rates matter much more for this 5 million-strong country than for this 35 million-strong country, all other things being equal, of course.
Yeah, I think that there is still hope of successfully integrating the Donbass into Russia since they appear to value their Russian language rights, autonomy, et cetera and are mostly Russophone anyway, but that trying to expand beyond the Donbass would be a fool's errand. Even if Russia will manage to install a puppet government in all of Ukraine, the EU could simply offer the Ukrainians fast-track EU membership if they will remove this government from power. For this EU offer not to look attractive, Russia would have to massively subsidize Ukraine while both itself and its puppet regime in Ukraine are simultaneously under extremely massive and very heavy Western sanctions. That's going to be very difficult for Russia to do, no doubt. And the Ukrainians who will be in the EU due to them fleeing there will no doubt report about just how good life in the EU is to their friends and relatives who are still in Ukraine.
I think that more realistic goals for Russia in this war would have been to liberate the rest of the Donbass and to expand in the south up to the Crimean Canal so that this canal could be unblocked but also to leave the rest of Ukraine alone. Maybe create a demilitarized zone between Kharkiv/Dnipro/Zaporizhya and the Donbass to eliminate any future Ukrainian threats to the Donbass. But Russia decided to go big or go home, unfortunately. :(
Even back in 2013, younger generations of Ukrainians were much more pro-EU than they were pro-Eurasia. Trying to make the EU lose its luster is very difficult indeed considering that countries such as Poland are in the EU and yet still successfully manage to avoid things like Wokeness, Muslim refugees, et cetera.
I agree with most of this. Though a true Iraq or Afghanistan-style insurgency still seems unlikely to me, but I'm also prepared to be surprised. Much more likely are strikes, protests, sabotage, and emigration.
Speaking of emigration, I have to think ease of emigration (both legally and in terms of accessing economic opportunities and overcoming cultural/linguistic barriers) is a factor in insurgencies besides fertility, since it serves as a sort of safety valve that releases young men who are adventurous, enterprising, and/or dissatisfied with life at home. Perhaps the Irish Troubles would have been much worse if emigration from Northern Ireland (whether to other parts of the UK, the Irish Republic, or elsewhere) weren't easy -- during its worst years something like 0.3% of NI's population left each year.
Of course, the flip side is that if it's easy to get into Russian-occupied Ukraine, then a certain sort of young foreign adventurer might decide to go there to raise hell, and all he really needs is the passive support of locals.
It was never about the "security guarantees" or fear of the NATO expansion. I am not sure if you had seen the already prepared declaration of victory article that was sitting on the Russian propaganda news channels such as ria.ru and sputnik.ru (now deleted but available in archives) ready to be linked to from the main page once the easy victory over Ukraine is achieved. The victory was supposed to be pronounced on Feb 26th and the "historic mission" Putin took on was to recreate the unified state of Russia, Belarus and Ukraine. This has been the mission all along. NATO expansion was just the pretext. I just can't believe why many republicans have so much difficulty falling out of love with Putin. Not sure why they fell for him to begin with. He is a deranged dictator who wanted to go down in history as equal to Peter the Great
here is the link to the article. It is in Russian. I am sure you will be able to find the English translation of it somewhere
I wonder if you or any of these surprised “experts” who describe or make predictions about Ukraine have ever actually been to Ukraine. Because if they had been, nothing would have been surprising.
Instead, these “experts” rely on Russian “knowledge” about Ukraine which is full of half-truths and desperate wishful thinking. Russian-speaking people are persecuted in Ukraine on a mass scale (you can now see videos of Russian-speaking Ukrainians cursing Russia in Russian). Ukraine’s government is not democratic and is hated by the people (Zelensky won in a landslide). Ukrainian people are under American-Nazi occupation and want liberation by Russia (lol). 80% of Ukrainian soldiers will desert as Crimean ones did (Crimeans are actually Russians, not just Russian-speaking Ukrainians). Banning Russian media was an example of repression (it was a populist move designed to get more support by picking on unpopular media sources) Etc.
Armed with their nonsensical “information” about a place they haven’t spent time in and clearly don’t know, these “experts” go on American talk shows where they try to trick understandably naive Americans to believe the nonsense.
I couldn’t believe that Russia would try to do more then annex Donbas (which unlike the rest of Ukraine has an actual Russian majority, albeit a slimmer one then in Crimea) because I figured it would have better intelligence about Ukraine. I figured wrong. And here we are.
AFAIK, the Donbass has a Russophone majority, not a Russian majority per se. There are a lot of Russophone Ukrainians in the Donbass. Though maybe things there have changed over the last eight years due to migration and re-identification.
And Yes, it certainly does seem like a more prudent goal for Russia would have been to advance up to the Crimean Canal in the south while exclusively aiming to liberate the rest of the Donbass while leaving the rest of Ukraine alone. Perhaps even having a demilitarized buffer zone between the Donbass and Kharkiv/Dnipro/Zaporizhya. But Putin decided to go big or go home, unfortunately. :(
I've been trying to figure out what is Putin's objective function, and from what I've read there are two (not necessarily exclusive) goals in Putin's mind: preempt NATO's expansion in Russia's neighborhood, and a bring-Russia-back-to-it's-former-glory desire.
You seem to put a lot of weight on the former and zero on the latter. Any particular reason for this?
It's puzzling to me as well, as it seems to be almost entirely the latter reason. The idea that NATO expansion was a genuine security threat to Russia (as opposed to merely an insult to its grandeur) seems about as credible and as good a justification for invasion as Iraq having WMDs (less so maybe). Anyone who laughs at the latter should laugh at the former as well.
Putin and Karlin both buy the fantasy of the three russian peoples all submitting to the divinely-appointed Czar. Too bad he's an evil midget and not a Romanov.
"If you were going to cut Russia off from SWIFT, for example, why wouldn’t you announce it beforehand?"
Not sure if you've ever heard of a "coordination problem," but trying to coordinate a massive, basically unprecedented, sanctions regime in advance of some hypothetical action is typically really, really hard when it involves say Germany making sacrifices about its economy. Have you considered thinking about political considerations when it comes to international relations and the reasons behind the prevalence of being reactive vs. proactive out of necessity? Putin made things very easy once the actual invasion kicked off and no one could pretend a major land war of conquest in Europe wasn't happening for the first time in 50+ years.
"Russia has security concerns, and Ukraine and the United States need to take them seriously."
Yeah, those Ukrainian neo-Nazi leaders and their nuclear weapons program need to be stopped don't they?
Russia has, in fact, no legitimate security concerns regarding Ukraine. Putin may have some legitimate fears of what it looks like when countries Russia used to dominate outperform it economically, align with the West, and have a defensive pact so he can no longer bully them or convince his own population he's a competent leader, but you have to be careful when negotiating with a paranoid bully. If you simply validate his tactics he might just keep using them.
Wrong. Russia has massive legitimate security concerns regarding Ukraine. Ukraine is not "outperforming Russia economically", where did you get that stupid idea? It has the same economic gap with Russia as East Germany had with the West c. 1980. NATO is an offensive alliance, not a defensive one.
NATO generally acts on the offensive when human rights are involved, but otherwise, it's defensive. But NATO won't ever act on the offensive in Russia because Russia has a lot of nukes.
Eh. Nukes are a weak threat against another nuclear power because they’re a mutual suicide pact. Does Putin have a death wish? Do the other Russians who’d have to sign off (including the flunky pushing the button)?
The level of casualties that nukes involve would still make countries much more hesitant about attacking a nuclear power. This is why, say, India doesn't attack Pakistan or why the US doesn't attack North Korea.
Well yes, now Putin does after he invaded and invited a proxy (or maybe full-blown) war with the E.U./NATO on his doorstep. Compared to that, I’d say his security issues with Ukraine were much less if he was rational.
Also, I know you hate game theory applied to IR and wish everyone would simply do the rational thing here, but actually "rational irrationality" has a huge role to play in deterring an aggressor. If the Ukrainians want to "win," they need to convince Putin the bear they are crazy like a honey badger.
Furthermore, if the West is always boringly predictable in its reactions then Putin can (and often has) simply exploit any given situation by being opportunistic and testing where the actual red lines are, as he did pretty successfully in 2008 and 2014. Here, he seems to have found an actual red line and the West is trying to impose high economic costs and provide a lot of lethal weaponry. If Putin plays the madman and waves his nuclear arsenal around then the main thing to do is ignore him. If he's not a madman, he's just posturing. If he is a madman, you either have to just give him anything he wants or actually have a nuclear exchange at some point.
I do think some of this was that the west itself didn't know how it would react, in part because the reaction was shaped by events that occurred in the last two weeks of the run-up to war. First there was Putin's speech, in which he ruined his case for legitimate security concerns by also arguing that Ukraine was an illegitimate country whose formation was a national tragedy for Russia. Then he framed his invasion as "denazification" which meant all Zelinsky had to do was obviously not be a Nazi. None of that would have mattered very much if Zelinsky had fled and/or Ukrainian resistance had immediately collapsed. Instead we see Zelinsky smiling with soldiers, channeling John Wayne, while Putin scowls at the end of ridiculously long tables like some paranoiac. I don't know how much western leaders are being influenced by popular feeling vs. personal feeling, but I don't think it's so much that invading Ukraine was Europe's red line as Europe kind of discovered its red line based on reaction to particular events.
Last thought: I see tremendous value in these prediction markets as a tool to evaluate and improve punditry and decision making, but ultimately things like the survival of Ukrainian nationhood (or perhaps thermonuclear war) ultimately depend on things like whether an ex-comedian will board a helicopter. There's only so much you can predict.
But actually a full on invasion hits different for Europe it appears.
Had Ukraine folded like a wet blanket in the first couple of days, then I'm sure a lot of Europe would have just been like "well, sad, but foregone conclusion at this point so let's slap some light sanctions on Putin as per usual and try looking the other way."
I'm wary of overestimating how much Zelensky personally is a causal factor here. I think Ukrainians wouldn't have simply given up had he evacuated or been killed.
Maybe I am overestimating the Zelensky factor on Ukrainians. Let's put it this way, if he were some fat sixty year old oligarch who fled at the first sign of danger, I'm not sure the west would be reaction the way it did, even if the Ukrainians had fought just as hard.
You're conflating a few terms here. You can be boringly predictable in your reactions if you reactions are sufficiently scary. Tit-for-tat is a boring, predictable game that usually devolves down to a status quo where everyone does nothing. That's a good outcome for IR, because people doing things in this case means stuff like "invading another country".
I don't understand "If Putin plays the madman and waves his nuclear arsenal around then the main thing to do is ignore him.... If he is a madman, you either have to just give him anything he wants or actually have a nuclear exchange at some point." So which of those outcomes are you favoring? I don't want either of them.
A game theoretic framework that makes more sense is that Russian and the West can each choose to escalate, ignore, or back down in the face of successive threats. But we have to realize that we're also playing different games. From the Western perspective, our goals are basically to show our moral indignation and to deter future escalation. A Russian escalation into open warfare against NATO would be a defeat for Western strategy.
So, we have to escalate, and the hope is Russia backs down. The second best case though, is that we escalate and Russia just ignores us. That is, we escalate enough to show our outrage and signal our deterrence against future aggression. There's a million ways to do this without putting Russia in a position where it feels it must also escalate.
If your reactions are pretty scary but a sufficiently clever adversary tries to exploit edge cases and gray areas (i.e., not attacking a NATO member) then you're still going to have to develop response options of the fly sometimes. There was no predefined "article 5 for sanctions" or anything like that, so Putin probably thought the Germans for example wouldn't do what they're doing. He presumably thought fear and caution would allow him to invade without major repercussions.
If Putin is a madman then it's essentially impossible to reason with him. Anything we do could backfire, short of giving him anything he wants. (And even then!)
If he's not a madman, then he won't actually escalate to nuclear warfare and so he's just posturing because MAD remains in effect.
I'm not advocating for either of those situations. I'm trying to be realistic about dealing with someone who is trying to exploit the system by relying on weak responses to aggression.
You realize this logic goes both ways right? Putin has completely justified the NATO aspirations of every country near Russia.
Ukraine is in some large part a failed state due to Russia invading it in 2014, creating an ongoing insurgency, and generally interfering with its ability to align with the EU economy.
Ukraine was a failed state even before that, but Yeah, countries in that neighborhood certainly have a right to insist on good security guarantees like NATO due to a history of aggression against them and/or other countries in the region.
Now do the neo-Nazi government and the WMD program and Putin's desires to basically reestablish the Russian empire.
Even if, EVEN IF, all of what you just said was entirely true, Putin is trying to invade all of Ukraine, not merely establish the independence of breakaway regions.
You appear to actually be stupid enough to think that it was ever on the table to admit Ukraine to NATO while its territory was occupied by Russia and thereby immediately trigger Article 5 and presumably WWIII.
That's not how this works, that's not how any of this works.
You keep just ceding to Putin that "Russia's core needs" (which apparently include basically reestablishing the Russian empire) override Ukraine's or anyone else's.
If he has to do a WWII-style invasion of Ukraine, you’re essentially saying Putin has to fight an extended proxy war (or possibly even a full blown war) with the EU/NATO right on the doorstep of Russia (you’d have to be deluded not to realize that a WWII-style unprovoked invasion of a big democratic country in the heart of Europe wouldn’t result in that). Look at what happened the last time a WWII-style invasion of a Ukraine-sized country in the heart of Europe took place.
I'd say you're pretty much the opposite of correct. Russia's actions vindicated western fears, and the west is going to be far more interested in expanding NATO going forward because Putin just convinced everyone he really is the threat that some have been saying he is. And if those numbers are supposed to rationalize the invasion, I guess you think the Iraq and Afghanistan invasions were great too? Seriously, what's the argument, that Russia is going to uplift Ukraine? Is every country poorer than Russia a failed state? The West's reaction, by contrast, was completely ordinary and unremarkable. Of course it's going to fund and arm a nation aggressively invaded by another great power. Even if the US never cared an iota about the Ukraine it'd still do that just to raise the cost of aggression, which is perfectly reasonable.
“This is a purely defensive alliance” assuages nobodies fears. Nor does illegally removing the President of Ukraine when he tried to pursue closer economic ties with Russia.
It is true that if you operate from a framing where Russian fears and interference in others' political affairs are justified then everything Putin does is justified.
"If Ukraine is not a Russian puppet state then Putin can invade it's only fair" is pretty stupid logic.
If one wants to be fair, Yanukovych was only deposed after he engaged in a lot of brutal violence against Ukrainian protesters. That caused them to think/believe that he had lost his legitimacy to rule even though his term hasn't actually expired yet. I do agree that having him finish his term would have been better, though, and maybe this could have been done had he treated Ukrainian pro-European protesters much better and specifically much less violently.
"The whole point of a punishment like that is supposed to be its deterrent effect, but if you don’t communicate that a specific action will happen, then it can’t influence behavior."
It would have been good to use the SWIFT as a deterrent, but punishment isn't just about deterrence. E.g. locking up murders in prison (or even executing them) isn't just to deter murder --- it's also to keep murders from committing more murders. In this case, if you wreck the Russian economy, it'll be less capable of mounting large military operations in the future. So, I disagree that deterrence is "the whole point"; it's only part of the point (albeit a large part). An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure, but that doesn't mean the cure is worthless.
assuming that Putin was a rational actor, together these articles made a convincing case that he would go to war and he would go big. Quoting from your excellent analysis: I wanted to reiterate what you said... ASSUMING PUTIN was a rational actor: I do understand how you came to your predictions and outcomes; however, I think it is too early to start "talking about lessons learned" from the Russian penetration into the Sovreign Nation of Ukraine, regardless of how corrupt it has been in the past. I have a personal friend who is Ukrainian and served in the Carter administration yes.. he is that old and was formerly a diplomat representing the U.S to NATO.. he is there NOW, so that is how long I have studied this situation. I knew when Putin "annexed" Crimea, which is populated mostly my ethnic Russians that was the beginning of his march into Ukraine. This has been well talked about in Christian theologians and writers because of the b Biblical prophecies with regard to Crimea and Chernobyl. (Gog and Magog) I will keep it short: As dual German Citizen I am glad that NATO and GERMANY stepped up their response to Putin. I don't think American Troops should be deployed there and yes I do get that the CIA meddled big time in the Ukrainian elections around 2013 and 2014.. and Obama was part of that disaster; thirdly and lastly and most importantly: I am of the opinion that Putin may no longer be a "rational actor" based on some his recent strange comments. and actions. (Obviously, you are smart go and read what he has said. recently.. bizarre). meantime I remain in Prayer for Ukrainians and the Russians Orthodox Church and the people who are suffering over there. Thanks for the update. fascinating review and keenly perceptive on your part.
Yeah, you got a lot wrong post-start. I didn’t post anywhere but I predicted that Putin would attack and that if he was illogical enough to launch a big WWII-style multipronged invasion of a large democratic country in the heart of Europe, both the Ukrainian response would be extremely unfriendly and the West would be outraged.
I think you were misled by your silly mental framework of client states. That’s not why people fight. People really hate being invaded and have their nation be existentially threatened. Especially those who have a pretty strong sense of nationhood (and Ukrainians are essentially homogeneous bilinguals).
As for the Western response, there is the rational part that no European democracy would like to see a belligerent untrustworthy Russia attack a peaceful European democracy unprovoked. I would think you would know why simply from a self-interest perspective. Putin’s untrustworthy when he said beforehand that he wouldn’t invade. There is also the emotional part that the populace of the overwhelmingly white Western democracies are extremely shocked and outraged to see a large white European democracy be invaded unprovoked and existentially threatened. Guess what, the last time that happened, other Western powers jumped in the fight as well.
It’s a major blind spot of yours if you didn’t find that to be obvious. (And of course, a major blind spot of Putin’s too).
He’s great about this stuff. I don’t think he’s right about echelons (Russia is bringing in its 2nd echelon now) but straight on on the other stuff. Ultimately, human beings are emotional creatures who’s lives are shaped by stories/myths, and since forever up to now (who knows about the future), wars are fought by human beings.
I agree with your critique of not threatening to cut off Russia from SWIFT beforehand being a mistake. I disagree with your assessment that it can't influence behavior. It seems like it throws another large tally in the 'Cons' column for Russia's calculations in how long they can carry on with the invasion. It doesn't have to be said that such things are reversible, and threatening and not implementing after the invasion has started would seem weak. So my take is: Big mistake not threatening more drastic sanctions beforehand, correct decision after invasion began. Also possible deterrent effect for China with Taiwan, now that they see the scale of sanctions the West is willing to bring. Curious about your thoughts on this.
Eh. Humans are ultimately emotional animals. There was no way to credibly threaten that pre-invasion because Western countries wouldn’t have settled on that course of action pre-invasion. But unless Putin is a complete dumbass who doesn’t read history or understand human beings, he should have seen that the economic sanctions brought so far would be the least the West would do after a WWII-style invasion of Ukraine.
When humans are shocked, they react. They often don’t react before they are shocked. There was virtually no desire to fight a war with Japan before Pearl Harbor. Obviously, sentiment changed fast.
You are a bunch of self-centered arrogant pseudo-intellectual idiots who know absolutely nothing about Russia or Russians, Ukraine or Ukrainians. But what's worse you have no heart
“ Now, we shouldn’t get ahead of ourselves, as Russia is still making rapid progress.”
Absolutely. I don’t understand this narrative about the Russian advance underperforming. They’re making solid progress. If the Ukrainians aren’t able to launch effective counterattacks, Ukraine = Russia before the summer.
Wars don’t operate on social media timescales or adhere to a Twitter timelines.
They’re making progress but they are also showing an amazing amount of incompetence along the way. Mind you, Putin may still beat the Ukrainians militarily because he has an overwhelming amount of firepower vs the Ukrainians (unless the EU/NATO decides to bring guns to the fight in a major way). But regardless of how this turns out, Putin has already lost politically. One way he lost is that he’s showed clearly to all Western militaries that the Russian conventional military is a paper tiger. The Western generals (not the think tankers and analysts with no military training) who had studied the Russian army already knew this, but he has made this clear to all Western officers who have paid any attention to the Ukraine war. The Russian army is effing up core basic stuff (stuff that you’d need to do decently to keep any military or even insurgency running) on a scale that is simply shocking from a NATO perspective.
Unfortunately, taking away the fear of the conventional Russian military does increase the chances of nuclear Holocaust.
"what they're doing is not trying to conquer ukraine there are many people who say the russians are going to go on a rampage they're going to try and reestablish the soviet union or a greater
russia and so forth and so on uh that's not going to happen uh putin is much too smart for that you remember what happened when the russians invaded afghanistan you remember
what happened when we invaded afghanistan you remember what happened when we and reid invaded iraq you remember what happened when the israelis invaded southern lebanon
you want to stay out of these places
in fact if you really want to wreck russia what you should do is encourage it to try and conquer ukraine
Yes. That’s why the vast majority of folks in both Russia and Ukraine(!) didn’t expect a full-blown WWII-style invasion. Because it was so idiotic bordering on insane.
Putin considered himself a man of destiny, unfortunately. As someone who must act drastically regardless of the cost because he apparently viewed history as being overdetermined. Similar to German military and political leaders in 1914, in fact.
Maybe reassess your "very intelligent" friend? I guess he's still probably intelligent. But the stuff he sputtered out indicates he's not reading very smart anymore, perhaps instead more satisfyingly honing his tribal instincts and immersing himself in the domestic shit pool, yelling HILLARY! EMAILS! SERVER! CROWDSTRIKE! Either that or he's embarrasingly ignorant about how a business like Crowdstrike operates.
I'm late to the party, but just adding that I think the analysis doesn't do itself any favors by not mentioning Zelensky. That's another big difference with Afghanistan. Leadership has become such a banal concept here, but it really does matter and his PR in the war has been unmatched.
Twitterization, made up word, Edwin Newman said in one of his language books "never ise or wise your words". Anyhow Richard Hanania sound like he scoring his proficiency on the children's board game of "RISK"?
One thing you didn’t predict, understandably, is the “Twitterization” of the conflict.
Suppose that you set out in 2019 to predict how governments would respond to the next pandemic. How would you do this? Presumably you’d look at their responses to past pandemics, estimate the probable severity of a virus, follow the latest public health discussions and the latest vaccine technology, etc. Would that exercise lead you to predict what happened over the last two years? No, not even close.
What happened was that people in early 2020 scrolled and tweeted their way into a frenzy. This deeply affected those in leadership roles, partly because they were responding to their constituents and partly because they themselves spend a lot of time scrolling and tweeting. As a result, the pandemic response was far more extreme and far different than someone in 2019 would have predicted.
Just as COVID-19 is the first pandemic in the Age of Twitter, so the Ukraine invasion is, in some sense, the first war in the Age of Twitter. As it unfolds, we are seeing many disturbing parallels to the events of early 2020. People are rapidly normalizing once-fringe ideas like a NATO-enforced no-fly zone, direct US conflict with Russia, regime change in Moscow, and even, incredibly, the use of nuclear weapons. Just as with COVID, we’re seeing the rapid abandonment of longstanding Western policies. The overnight flips on German defense spending and SWIFT are like the overturning of conventional public health policies on masking, lockdowns, and so on.
The emotionalism and recklessness we see in the Western professional class right now are producing an extremely dangerous situation. Let’s hope that it can be de-escalated before we get into a world war. And in making future predictions, we should acknowledge that the hyperconnected world brings with it new tail risks produced by rapid online escalation.
thank you, this is a really important point.
twitter has turned western elites, esp in media, politics and academia, into perpetually addled infants who are addicted to public displays of piety and can only respond to any situation with an angry tantrum designed to get them the most attention and make them seem the most "moral."
twitter has made it impossible for our supposed thinking classes to reason clearly, to process all factors and make intelligent assessments, basically to be rational adults.
the difference between our political discourse pre- and post-Twitter is like the difference between someone before and after their crack addiction.
You’re giving too much credit to Twitter. In the case of the invasion of Ukraine, both the cold calculations of self-interest and populist outrage align in the same direction.
Do you suppose Senator Lindsey Graham (pre twitter) would have openly advocated assassinating President Vladimir Putin? Neither do I. Like diarrhea, he can't help himself.
Yes, Twitter is definitely to blame. And not G's knowledge of drone strikes that normalised assasination... The first hypothesis you think of just always be correct! Otherwise thinking would be *hard*..
I can't help but feel you're doing the thing where you describe a pre-internet phenomenon that now occurs on the internet and attributing it to the internet. To borrow a Matthew Yglesias example, now we organize dinner parties by e-mail, but dinner parties were as or more common before e-mails. "Popular outrage at the deprivations of X against Y shaping policy" has been happening forever. It might be a little faster now, to the extent newspaper photos took more time than viral videos.
To some extent, but the new medium also generates new behavior. Your example hints at that; if there are fewer dinner parties than there were before the internet, that's partly because people are using the internet to spend their evenings watching Netflix and browsing Facebook rather than going out to see people.
COVID-19 as a social and political phenomenon would have been dramatically different if the virus had emerged in 2000, before social media existed. Likewise, I fear, this war.
It's not just the speed of seeing deprivation but the speed at which a popular response can be generated has outstripped the speed at which people can consider a course of action.
By the time you read or saw something in a newspaper it used to be hours or even days old, and the level to which individuals could coordinate and communicate responses was also very limited.
I love how the Russians don't even have a comms system.
Twitter is improvised policy by the random masses possibly thanks to new tech, this invasion, however, is pre-electricity in organizational structure.
But that isn't technology, or the historical moment, that's a dictator that surrounds himself with the stupid so as to be unthreatened.
> People are rapidly normalizing [...] the use of nuclear weapons.
Putin's doing that, not random people on twitter.
The most "extreme" covid response was in China. The biggest Twitter user was surely Trump. I really don't think you've thought about this.
NATO expansion is a pretext for the deranged emperor to extend the reach of his mafia state. Historically, Ukraine was not a country, but Putin forged it. If Russia were attractive as a partner, many Ukrainians would support getting closer and perhaps establishing a confederation. But this is over now. The hatred against Russia is at the level not seen since the war against Nazis. If you could understand the pull of freedom and the disgust with Russia among the Ukrainians before the invasion, you’d have made a much better prediction about how strong they’d resist the invaders. Ukraine has already won since the now have a leader who, dead or alive, is a powerful symbol of resistance against the ugly force and the catalyst of national unity and readiness to sacrifice to keep national freedom. And plz stop talking about NATO expansion as the reason for this invasion and stop pushing for appeasement of the mafia state.
To be honest, even back in the early 2010s, I would have predicted that Russia simply wouldn't be able to compete with the EU for Ukrainians' hearts and minds in the long(er)-run. And even back then, the younger generations of Ukrainians were much more pro-EU than they were pro-EEU. (EEU = Eurasian Economic Union.)
Russian nationalists like Anatoly Karlin might like to talk about economies of scale, but when you're going to be the junior partner in any confederation in any case, why join a 200-250 million-strong confederation when you can join a 500+ million-strong confederation instead?
WOW. there is so much to respond to and I did check out Anatoly Karlin profile and for sure I do not know what to make of him so I won't say anything: he listed transhumanism on his blog so I am stopping right there on that: However, your comment is so compelling in its secularist outlook I am floored. This is not about Russia competing for Ukrainian hearts and minds. Russians and Ukrainians are both very proud and nationalistic with regard to their cultures. While both countries are historically Orthodox and in (Christian Orthodox) I have been to the Holy Trinity Russian Church (my Big Fat Greek Wedding).in Toronto to take care a friend's mother RIP.. who was from Belarus with her husband, who was an engineer who helped design the church. I have spent YEARS with both Ukrainians and Russians who are intermarried but even here in the U.S maintain SEPARATE CHURCHES and even actually establish enclaves of Russian speaking only areas and Ukrainian speaking only enclaves. The concept of "assimilation" or melting pot is almost nonexistent. This is not anecdotal: there is a HUGE cultural divide between Russians and Ukrainians.. and since I am of European descent but American it always sort of amazed me. I went to huge diplomatic parties (here in DC) I don't want to mention names where all of them were in attendance; both sides (lubricated might I add) seemed to be mixing well but half the room spoke Russian and the other half Ukraine and they usually always spoke both languages and well as English. There always sort of "unspoken" subtle underlying tension. You know what I mean. From my perspective and I mean this has gone on for 50 years .. and I still know many of these people (I was the youngest there) and many have passed it was the UKRAINIANS who at all times maintained their stance of SEPARATISM because they believed that they were the bread basket of the world. One dear lady, Oxana, RIP many years ago, God bless her; and I helped take care of her and husband until their deaths because they lived near me in the country in Virginia, swore that the Garden of Eden was in Ukraine! The nationalistic pride of the Ukrainians is palpable and in all my years I have never met any other group of people who were more adamant about their unique culture and place in the World. The Russians know this as well. Ukraine to this day as shown by the maps now shown to the world has huge areas of Ethnic Russians, but still maintain separate communities and churches. The EUROPEAN UNION was established by EUROPEANS for EUROPEANS after WW with the Baltic and Nordic States being added in after Soviet Union was defeated by U.S In the Cold War (details sketchy) I have real issues with broad sweeping generalities discussing what the hearts and minds of Ukrainians or even Russians feel about Europe or the EU. As dual German citizen I went to Germany after the fall of the wall in Berlin to visit my living family there and you may remember that Berlin sits in the middle of former Soviet Controlled East Germany. Germany remembers very vividly as well as other counties what happened to their economies and people under Soviet Rule. I saw it first-hand. I will tell you this: Americans think very differently than you can possibly imagine when it comes to national pride or culture, in part, the reason that Trump's America First was so amazingly successful is that it gave validity to Americanism and a sense of our own culture which was established by the Constitution and Founding Fathers which tapped into raw and previously unspoken cultural pride which Americans who are first and second generation like me and my family (German, Italian, French. English mixed bag) who assimilated into America.. and some like me, my dad was from Pennsylvania and fought for America in WW2, 23 years. Despite all of that Patriotic fervor there were people like me (a scientist) who did hear parts of the truth as told by parents and grand parents (those who listened) about the LIES that the entire WORLD including America continues to purvey with regard to National Security, the manic secrecy of a government which is in theory answerable to the governed! My own sons were told the truth about everything I could tell including I never burdened with them social mass delusions like Santa Claus for which my son who is a computer developer thanks me for every year. Well.. that is all I got for now. :) The podiatrist removed a big chunk of toenail that I dropped a brick on.. (for real) AND IT HURTS.. going to ice it elevate it :) and I need to rest.. VERY INTERESTING folks here. I realize I am much older than a lot of people posting .. just giving you my intergenerational perspective :) and I am a Christian as well. well post on another site if I my foot stops hurting tonight! very thought provoking and interesting posts .. for sure.
Western Ukrainians are Catholic - that is one of the issues driving the conflict.
A key driver of the schism is that before 1917, Western Ukraine was part of Austro-Hungary and Eastern Ukraine was part of Russian Empire.
Exactly right: Americans are being driven by the left-wing agnostic and atheists who do not understand that many wars and long-term conflicts including Islam, for the last thousand plus years of conflict originate from "faith/religion" therefore: money and power over people. I don't need to say more. I am a Christian and Berean and student of the Bible for many decades, but I was raised Catholic, and I appreciate my early teaching teachings; became a Christian in my early 20s.
Yep. A bigger much richer much stronger confederation.
Yeah, Ukraine was always the EU's for the taking, but the desire was not fully there--until now, very possibly. Yes, the EU did sign an Association Agreement with Ukraine in 2014, but only right now is full EU membership for Ukraine being discussed, ironically thanks to Vladimir Putin himself making the decision to invade Ukraine.
I'm realizing now that if nothing else, the promise of the EU and massive subsidies from the West (powered by its newfound sympathy for Ukraine) will eliminate what hope Russia might have for integrating at least part of Ukraine into it.
If Russia annexed Eastern Ukraine (outside the Donbas), winning hearts and minds would require, besides forgetting about this war, somehow economically outperforming a massively-subsidized Western Ukraine, and that doesn't seem possible. So East Ukrainians would perpetually have their eyes turned West and basically be in the same position as East Germans, except without even an ideology like Communism to justify their inclusion in Russia.
I think that 2014 was a golden time for Russia to test the extent of separatist sentiments in Ukraine. Back then, there was a revolution in Ukraine and a lawless removal of Ukraine's President (albeit due to Ukrainian protesters feeling that he had lost his right to rule after he used brutal violence against them). Yet even back then, with all of the chaos in Kiev, only Crimea and a huge part of the Donbass were actually willing to secede from Ukraine. The rest of Ukraine remained united. Any separatism in places like Kharkiv was quickly flushed out before it could become a threat. And even the Donbass separatist movement really only got going after a lot of Russian volunteers, weapons, and money were sent there--though there there was more local support for things like federalization than even in Kharkiv.
Over the last decade or so, I have seen Russia and/or Russians consistently overestimate its abilities and appeal in Ukraine:
-Early 2010s: Regathering of the Russian lands: https://www.unz.com/akarlin/regathering-russian-lands/ Basically, the Russian belief was that because the EU was ailing (Eurozone crisis, et cetera) while Eurasia was dynamic, Ukraine would inevitably be pulled into Eurasia's orbit, especially considering that the EU didn't actually want Ukraine back then, other than of course to sign an Association Agreement with it (which AFAIK Tunisia, Egypt, et cetera also have).
-2014: After the Maidan Revolution, there was speculation that there could be separatist uprisings throughout all of Novorossiya. But they only occurred in Crimea and the Donbass while the rest of Novorossiya stayed quiet. And rather than agree to federalization on Russia's terms (giving the Donbass veto power over Ukrainian EU and NATO membership), Ukraine preferred to de facto indefinitely lose the separatist-controlled Donbass, even if it didn't quite so openly say this.
-2022: Russia invades Ukraine. Some Russians expect Kiev to fall within 48 hours. It's already almost a week and Kiev still hasn't fallen.
FWIW, I do expect Russia to eventually win the conventional stage of this current war in Ukraine if it decides to fight it to a finish. But dealing with a subsequent Ukrainian insurgency, sabotage, et cetera could be quite problematic. Not to mention the possibility of a Ukrainian equivalent to Poland's 1980s Solidarity movement, with massive strikes, et cetera.
Fertility rates do matter for an insurgency but they're more crucial when the base population is small. All else being equal, it's easier for a 150 million-strong country to subjugate a 5 million-strong country than it is for this 150 million-strong country to subjugate a 35 million-strong country simply because the 5 million-strong country will run out of warm bodies for an insurgency much faster than the 35 million-strong country will. Thus, fertility rates matter much more for this 5 million-strong country than for this 35 million-strong country, all other things being equal, of course.
Yeah, I think that there is still hope of successfully integrating the Donbass into Russia since they appear to value their Russian language rights, autonomy, et cetera and are mostly Russophone anyway, but that trying to expand beyond the Donbass would be a fool's errand. Even if Russia will manage to install a puppet government in all of Ukraine, the EU could simply offer the Ukrainians fast-track EU membership if they will remove this government from power. For this EU offer not to look attractive, Russia would have to massively subsidize Ukraine while both itself and its puppet regime in Ukraine are simultaneously under extremely massive and very heavy Western sanctions. That's going to be very difficult for Russia to do, no doubt. And the Ukrainians who will be in the EU due to them fleeing there will no doubt report about just how good life in the EU is to their friends and relatives who are still in Ukraine.
I think that more realistic goals for Russia in this war would have been to liberate the rest of the Donbass and to expand in the south up to the Crimean Canal so that this canal could be unblocked but also to leave the rest of Ukraine alone. Maybe create a demilitarized zone between Kharkiv/Dnipro/Zaporizhya and the Donbass to eliminate any future Ukrainian threats to the Donbass. But Russia decided to go big or go home, unfortunately. :(
Even back in 2013, younger generations of Ukrainians were much more pro-EU than they were pro-Eurasia. Trying to make the EU lose its luster is very difficult indeed considering that countries such as Poland are in the EU and yet still successfully manage to avoid things like Wokeness, Muslim refugees, et cetera.
I agree with most of this. Though a true Iraq or Afghanistan-style insurgency still seems unlikely to me, but I'm also prepared to be surprised. Much more likely are strikes, protests, sabotage, and emigration.
Speaking of emigration, I have to think ease of emigration (both legally and in terms of accessing economic opportunities and overcoming cultural/linguistic barriers) is a factor in insurgencies besides fertility, since it serves as a sort of safety valve that releases young men who are adventurous, enterprising, and/or dissatisfied with life at home. Perhaps the Irish Troubles would have been much worse if emigration from Northern Ireland (whether to other parts of the UK, the Irish Republic, or elsewhere) weren't easy -- during its worst years something like 0.3% of NI's population left each year.
Of course, the flip side is that if it's easy to get into Russian-occupied Ukraine, then a certain sort of young foreign adventurer might decide to go there to raise hell, and all he really needs is the passive support of locals.
Yes you are right NATO expansion is HARDLY the issue at hand. !
Yep. Just look at Putin’s rant justifying invasion before invading. Was NATO given as the main reason?
:) I am glad you agree
It was never about the "security guarantees" or fear of the NATO expansion. I am not sure if you had seen the already prepared declaration of victory article that was sitting on the Russian propaganda news channels such as ria.ru and sputnik.ru (now deleted but available in archives) ready to be linked to from the main page once the easy victory over Ukraine is achieved. The victory was supposed to be pronounced on Feb 26th and the "historic mission" Putin took on was to recreate the unified state of Russia, Belarus and Ukraine. This has been the mission all along. NATO expansion was just the pretext. I just can't believe why many republicans have so much difficulty falling out of love with Putin. Not sure why they fell for him to begin with. He is a deranged dictator who wanted to go down in history as equal to Peter the Great
here is the link to the article. It is in Russian. I am sure you will be able to find the English translation of it somewhere
https://web.archive.org/web/20220226051154/https://ria.ru/20220226/rossiya-1775162336.html
I wonder if you or any of these surprised “experts” who describe or make predictions about Ukraine have ever actually been to Ukraine. Because if they had been, nothing would have been surprising.
Instead, these “experts” rely on Russian “knowledge” about Ukraine which is full of half-truths and desperate wishful thinking. Russian-speaking people are persecuted in Ukraine on a mass scale (you can now see videos of Russian-speaking Ukrainians cursing Russia in Russian). Ukraine’s government is not democratic and is hated by the people (Zelensky won in a landslide). Ukrainian people are under American-Nazi occupation and want liberation by Russia (lol). 80% of Ukrainian soldiers will desert as Crimean ones did (Crimeans are actually Russians, not just Russian-speaking Ukrainians). Banning Russian media was an example of repression (it was a populist move designed to get more support by picking on unpopular media sources) Etc.
Armed with their nonsensical “information” about a place they haven’t spent time in and clearly don’t know, these “experts” go on American talk shows where they try to trick understandably naive Americans to believe the nonsense.
I couldn’t believe that Russia would try to do more then annex Donbas (which unlike the rest of Ukraine has an actual Russian majority, albeit a slimmer one then in Crimea) because I figured it would have better intelligence about Ukraine. I figured wrong. And here we are.
AFAIK, the Donbass has a Russophone majority, not a Russian majority per se. There are a lot of Russophone Ukrainians in the Donbass. Though maybe things there have changed over the last eight years due to migration and re-identification.
And Yes, it certainly does seem like a more prudent goal for Russia would have been to advance up to the Crimean Canal in the south while exclusively aiming to liberate the rest of the Donbass while leaving the rest of Ukraine alone. Perhaps even having a demilitarized buffer zone between the Donbass and Kharkiv/Dnipro/Zaporizhya. But Putin decided to go big or go home, unfortunately. :(
I've been trying to figure out what is Putin's objective function, and from what I've read there are two (not necessarily exclusive) goals in Putin's mind: preempt NATO's expansion in Russia's neighborhood, and a bring-Russia-back-to-it's-former-glory desire.
You seem to put a lot of weight on the former and zero on the latter. Any particular reason for this?
It's puzzling to me as well, as it seems to be almost entirely the latter reason. The idea that NATO expansion was a genuine security threat to Russia (as opposed to merely an insult to its grandeur) seems about as credible and as good a justification for invasion as Iraq having WMDs (less so maybe). Anyone who laughs at the latter should laugh at the former as well.
Putin and Karlin both buy the fantasy of the three russian peoples all submitting to the divinely-appointed Czar. Too bad he's an evil midget and not a Romanov.
Anatoly Karlin?
"If you were going to cut Russia off from SWIFT, for example, why wouldn’t you announce it beforehand?"
Not sure if you've ever heard of a "coordination problem," but trying to coordinate a massive, basically unprecedented, sanctions regime in advance of some hypothetical action is typically really, really hard when it involves say Germany making sacrifices about its economy. Have you considered thinking about political considerations when it comes to international relations and the reasons behind the prevalence of being reactive vs. proactive out of necessity? Putin made things very easy once the actual invasion kicked off and no one could pretend a major land war of conquest in Europe wasn't happening for the first time in 50+ years.
"Russia has security concerns, and Ukraine and the United States need to take them seriously."
Yeah, those Ukrainian neo-Nazi leaders and their nuclear weapons program need to be stopped don't they?
Russia has, in fact, no legitimate security concerns regarding Ukraine. Putin may have some legitimate fears of what it looks like when countries Russia used to dominate outperform it economically, align with the West, and have a defensive pact so he can no longer bully them or convince his own population he's a competent leader, but you have to be careful when negotiating with a paranoid bully. If you simply validate his tactics he might just keep using them.
Wrong. Russia has massive legitimate security concerns regarding Ukraine. Ukraine is not "outperforming Russia economically", where did you get that stupid idea? It has the same economic gap with Russia as East Germany had with the West c. 1980. NATO is an offensive alliance, not a defensive one.
NATO generally acts on the offensive when human rights are involved, but otherwise, it's defensive. But NATO won't ever act on the offensive in Russia because Russia has a lot of nukes.
Eh. Nukes are a weak threat against another nuclear power because they’re a mutual suicide pact. Does Putin have a death wish? Do the other Russians who’d have to sign off (including the flunky pushing the button)?
The level of casualties that nukes involve would still make countries much more hesitant about attacking a nuclear power. This is why, say, India doesn't attack Pakistan or why the US doesn't attack North Korea.
I did not say Ukraine is already outperforming Russia economically (though other former USSR states are), I said Russia fears that becoming true.
"NATO iS An oFfEnSIve aLiAnce"
Ok, bud, if you and Putin say so.
Well yes, now Putin does after he invaded and invited a proxy (or maybe full-blown) war with the E.U./NATO on his doorstep. Compared to that, I’d say his security issues with Ukraine were much less if he was rational.
FWIW, NATO's 1999 bombing of Serbia did scare Russia. But Russia has nukes and thus NATO wouldn't dare what it did to Serbia to Russia.
Also, I know you hate game theory applied to IR and wish everyone would simply do the rational thing here, but actually "rational irrationality" has a huge role to play in deterring an aggressor. If the Ukrainians want to "win," they need to convince Putin the bear they are crazy like a honey badger.
Furthermore, if the West is always boringly predictable in its reactions then Putin can (and often has) simply exploit any given situation by being opportunistic and testing where the actual red lines are, as he did pretty successfully in 2008 and 2014. Here, he seems to have found an actual red line and the West is trying to impose high economic costs and provide a lot of lethal weaponry. If Putin plays the madman and waves his nuclear arsenal around then the main thing to do is ignore him. If he's not a madman, he's just posturing. If he is a madman, you either have to just give him anything he wants or actually have a nuclear exchange at some point.
I do think some of this was that the west itself didn't know how it would react, in part because the reaction was shaped by events that occurred in the last two weeks of the run-up to war. First there was Putin's speech, in which he ruined his case for legitimate security concerns by also arguing that Ukraine was an illegitimate country whose formation was a national tragedy for Russia. Then he framed his invasion as "denazification" which meant all Zelinsky had to do was obviously not be a Nazi. None of that would have mattered very much if Zelinsky had fled and/or Ukrainian resistance had immediately collapsed. Instead we see Zelinsky smiling with soldiers, channeling John Wayne, while Putin scowls at the end of ridiculously long tables like some paranoiac. I don't know how much western leaders are being influenced by popular feeling vs. personal feeling, but I don't think it's so much that invading Ukraine was Europe's red line as Europe kind of discovered its red line based on reaction to particular events.
Last thought: I see tremendous value in these prediction markets as a tool to evaluate and improve punditry and decision making, but ultimately things like the survival of Ukrainian nationhood (or perhaps thermonuclear war) ultimately depend on things like whether an ex-comedian will board a helicopter. There's only so much you can predict.
Putin thought this would be like 2014.
But actually a full on invasion hits different for Europe it appears.
Had Ukraine folded like a wet blanket in the first couple of days, then I'm sure a lot of Europe would have just been like "well, sad, but foregone conclusion at this point so let's slap some light sanctions on Putin as per usual and try looking the other way."
I'm wary of overestimating how much Zelensky personally is a causal factor here. I think Ukrainians wouldn't have simply given up had he evacuated or been killed.
Maybe I am overestimating the Zelensky factor on Ukrainians. Let's put it this way, if he were some fat sixty year old oligarch who fled at the first sign of danger, I'm not sure the west would be reaction the way it did, even if the Ukrainians had fought just as hard.
Portraying Zelensky as a Jewish puppet of Ukrainian Neo-Nazis was very funny, frankly!
You're conflating a few terms here. You can be boringly predictable in your reactions if you reactions are sufficiently scary. Tit-for-tat is a boring, predictable game that usually devolves down to a status quo where everyone does nothing. That's a good outcome for IR, because people doing things in this case means stuff like "invading another country".
I don't understand "If Putin plays the madman and waves his nuclear arsenal around then the main thing to do is ignore him.... If he is a madman, you either have to just give him anything he wants or actually have a nuclear exchange at some point." So which of those outcomes are you favoring? I don't want either of them.
A game theoretic framework that makes more sense is that Russian and the West can each choose to escalate, ignore, or back down in the face of successive threats. But we have to realize that we're also playing different games. From the Western perspective, our goals are basically to show our moral indignation and to deter future escalation. A Russian escalation into open warfare against NATO would be a defeat for Western strategy.
So, we have to escalate, and the hope is Russia backs down. The second best case though, is that we escalate and Russia just ignores us. That is, we escalate enough to show our outrage and signal our deterrence against future aggression. There's a million ways to do this without putting Russia in a position where it feels it must also escalate.
If your reactions are pretty scary but a sufficiently clever adversary tries to exploit edge cases and gray areas (i.e., not attacking a NATO member) then you're still going to have to develop response options of the fly sometimes. There was no predefined "article 5 for sanctions" or anything like that, so Putin probably thought the Germans for example wouldn't do what they're doing. He presumably thought fear and caution would allow him to invade without major repercussions.
If Putin is a madman then it's essentially impossible to reason with him. Anything we do could backfire, short of giving him anything he wants. (And even then!)
If he's not a madman, then he won't actually escalate to nuclear warfare and so he's just posturing because MAD remains in effect.
I'm not advocating for either of those situations. I'm trying to be realistic about dealing with someone who is trying to exploit the system by relying on weak responses to aggression.
You realize this logic goes both ways right? Putin has completely justified the NATO aspirations of every country near Russia.
Ukraine is in some large part a failed state due to Russia invading it in 2014, creating an ongoing insurgency, and generally interfering with its ability to align with the EU economy.
Ukraine was a failed state even before that, but Yeah, countries in that neighborhood certainly have a right to insist on good security guarantees like NATO due to a history of aggression against them and/or other countries in the region.
Now do the neo-Nazi government and the WMD program and Putin's desires to basically reestablish the Russian empire.
Even if, EVEN IF, all of what you just said was entirely true, Putin is trying to invade all of Ukraine, not merely establish the independence of breakaway regions.
You appear to actually be stupid enough to think that it was ever on the table to admit Ukraine to NATO while its territory was occupied by Russia and thereby immediately trigger Article 5 and presumably WWIII.
That's not how this works, that's not how any of this works.
You keep just ceding to Putin that "Russia's core needs" (which apparently include basically reestablishing the Russian empire) override Ukraine's or anyone else's.
See also: https://twitter.com/DAlperovitch/status/1498189698858205184
Um, again, why is invading Ukraine a core need?
If he has to do a WWII-style invasion of Ukraine, you’re essentially saying Putin has to fight an extended proxy war (or possibly even a full blown war) with the EU/NATO right on the doorstep of Russia (you’d have to be deluded not to realize that a WWII-style unprovoked invasion of a big democratic country in the heart of Europe wouldn’t result in that). Look at what happened the last time a WWII-style invasion of a Ukraine-sized country in the heart of Europe took place.
FWIW, I support both Crimean and Donbass separatism AND the desire of the rest of Ukraine to pursue its desired Euro-Atlantic integration.
I'd say you're pretty much the opposite of correct. Russia's actions vindicated western fears, and the west is going to be far more interested in expanding NATO going forward because Putin just convinced everyone he really is the threat that some have been saying he is. And if those numbers are supposed to rationalize the invasion, I guess you think the Iraq and Afghanistan invasions were great too? Seriously, what's the argument, that Russia is going to uplift Ukraine? Is every country poorer than Russia a failed state? The West's reaction, by contrast, was completely ordinary and unremarkable. Of course it's going to fund and arm a nation aggressively invaded by another great power. Even if the US never cared an iota about the Ukraine it'd still do that just to raise the cost of aggression, which is perfectly reasonable.
Also, which "Russian fears"?
Having a hard time distinguishing between the real ones and the fake ones after all those Putin speeches.
“This is a purely defensive alliance” assuages nobodies fears. Nor does illegally removing the President of Ukraine when he tried to pursue closer economic ties with Russia.
It is true that if you operate from a framing where Russian fears and interference in others' political affairs are justified then everything Putin does is justified.
"If Ukraine is not a Russian puppet state then Putin can invade it's only fair" is pretty stupid logic.
If one wants to be fair, Yanukovych was only deposed after he engaged in a lot of brutal violence against Ukrainian protesters. That caused them to think/believe that he had lost his legitimacy to rule even though his term hasn't actually expired yet. I do agree that having him finish his term would have been better, though, and maybe this could have been done had he treated Ukrainian pro-European protesters much better and specifically much less violently.
The wishful thinking that led to war.
"The whole point of a punishment like that is supposed to be its deterrent effect, but if you don’t communicate that a specific action will happen, then it can’t influence behavior."
It would have been good to use the SWIFT as a deterrent, but punishment isn't just about deterrence. E.g. locking up murders in prison (or even executing them) isn't just to deter murder --- it's also to keep murders from committing more murders. In this case, if you wreck the Russian economy, it'll be less capable of mounting large military operations in the future. So, I disagree that deterrence is "the whole point"; it's only part of the point (albeit a large part). An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure, but that doesn't mean the cure is worthless.
assuming that Putin was a rational actor, together these articles made a convincing case that he would go to war and he would go big. Quoting from your excellent analysis: I wanted to reiterate what you said... ASSUMING PUTIN was a rational actor: I do understand how you came to your predictions and outcomes; however, I think it is too early to start "talking about lessons learned" from the Russian penetration into the Sovreign Nation of Ukraine, regardless of how corrupt it has been in the past. I have a personal friend who is Ukrainian and served in the Carter administration yes.. he is that old and was formerly a diplomat representing the U.S to NATO.. he is there NOW, so that is how long I have studied this situation. I knew when Putin "annexed" Crimea, which is populated mostly my ethnic Russians that was the beginning of his march into Ukraine. This has been well talked about in Christian theologians and writers because of the b Biblical prophecies with regard to Crimea and Chernobyl. (Gog and Magog) I will keep it short: As dual German Citizen I am glad that NATO and GERMANY stepped up their response to Putin. I don't think American Troops should be deployed there and yes I do get that the CIA meddled big time in the Ukrainian elections around 2013 and 2014.. and Obama was part of that disaster; thirdly and lastly and most importantly: I am of the opinion that Putin may no longer be a "rational actor" based on some his recent strange comments. and actions. (Obviously, you are smart go and read what he has said. recently.. bizarre). meantime I remain in Prayer for Ukrainians and the Russians Orthodox Church and the people who are suffering over there. Thanks for the update. fascinating review and keenly perceptive on your part.
Yeah, you got a lot wrong post-start. I didn’t post anywhere but I predicted that Putin would attack and that if he was illogical enough to launch a big WWII-style multipronged invasion of a large democratic country in the heart of Europe, both the Ukrainian response would be extremely unfriendly and the West would be outraged.
I think you were misled by your silly mental framework of client states. That’s not why people fight. People really hate being invaded and have their nation be existentially threatened. Especially those who have a pretty strong sense of nationhood (and Ukrainians are essentially homogeneous bilinguals).
As for the Western response, there is the rational part that no European democracy would like to see a belligerent untrustworthy Russia attack a peaceful European democracy unprovoked. I would think you would know why simply from a self-interest perspective. Putin’s untrustworthy when he said beforehand that he wouldn’t invade. There is also the emotional part that the populace of the overwhelmingly white Western democracies are extremely shocked and outraged to see a large white European democracy be invaded unprovoked and existentially threatened. Guess what, the last time that happened, other Western powers jumped in the fight as well.
It’s a major blind spot of yours if you didn’t find that to be obvious. (And of course, a major blind spot of Putin’s too).
BTW, read Kamil Galeev:
https://mobile.twitter.com/kamilkazani/status/1498378530987646978
He’s great about this stuff. I don’t think he’s right about echelons (Russia is bringing in its 2nd echelon now) but straight on on the other stuff. Ultimately, human beings are emotional creatures who’s lives are shaped by stories/myths, and since forever up to now (who knows about the future), wars are fought by human beings.
I agree with your critique of not threatening to cut off Russia from SWIFT beforehand being a mistake. I disagree with your assessment that it can't influence behavior. It seems like it throws another large tally in the 'Cons' column for Russia's calculations in how long they can carry on with the invasion. It doesn't have to be said that such things are reversible, and threatening and not implementing after the invasion has started would seem weak. So my take is: Big mistake not threatening more drastic sanctions beforehand, correct decision after invasion began. Also possible deterrent effect for China with Taiwan, now that they see the scale of sanctions the West is willing to bring. Curious about your thoughts on this.
Eh. Humans are ultimately emotional animals. There was no way to credibly threaten that pre-invasion because Western countries wouldn’t have settled on that course of action pre-invasion. But unless Putin is a complete dumbass who doesn’t read history or understand human beings, he should have seen that the economic sanctions brought so far would be the least the West would do after a WWII-style invasion of Ukraine.
When humans are shocked, they react. They often don’t react before they are shocked. There was virtually no desire to fight a war with Japan before Pearl Harbor. Obviously, sentiment changed fast.
You are a bunch of self-centered arrogant pseudo-intellectual idiots who know absolutely nothing about Russia or Russians, Ukraine or Ukrainians. But what's worse you have no heart
“ Now, we shouldn’t get ahead of ourselves, as Russia is still making rapid progress.”
Absolutely. I don’t understand this narrative about the Russian advance underperforming. They’re making solid progress. If the Ukrainians aren’t able to launch effective counterattacks, Ukraine = Russia before the summer.
Wars don’t operate on social media timescales or adhere to a Twitter timelines.
They’re making progress but they are also showing an amazing amount of incompetence along the way. Mind you, Putin may still beat the Ukrainians militarily because he has an overwhelming amount of firepower vs the Ukrainians (unless the EU/NATO decides to bring guns to the fight in a major way). But regardless of how this turns out, Putin has already lost politically. One way he lost is that he’s showed clearly to all Western militaries that the Russian conventional military is a paper tiger. The Western generals (not the think tankers and analysts with no military training) who had studied the Russian army already knew this, but he has made this clear to all Western officers who have paid any attention to the Ukraine war. The Russian army is effing up core basic stuff (stuff that you’d need to do decently to keep any military or even insurgency running) on a scale that is simply shocking from a NATO perspective.
Unfortunately, taking away the fear of the conventional Russian military does increase the chances of nuclear Holocaust.
Thanks, Putin.
I won’t even concede there’s been some kind of exposé of the Russian military yet.
Militaries can adapt pretty quickly once they start getting worked over. They might be knocking off the ring rust.
Looks like John Mearsheimer overestimated Putin's IQ:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JrMiSQAGOS4
00:23:17
"what they're doing is not trying to conquer ukraine there are many people who say the russians are going to go on a rampage they're going to try and reestablish the soviet union or a greater
russia and so forth and so on uh that's not going to happen uh putin is much too smart for that you remember what happened when the russians invaded afghanistan you remember
what happened when we invaded afghanistan you remember what happened when we and reid invaded iraq you remember what happened when the israelis invaded southern lebanon
you want to stay out of these places
in fact if you really want to wreck russia what you should do is encourage it to try and conquer ukraine
putin again is much too smart to do that"
Here's to Russia getting wrecked!
Yes. That’s why the vast majority of folks in both Russia and Ukraine(!) didn’t expect a full-blown WWII-style invasion. Because it was so idiotic bordering on insane.
Putin considered himself a man of destiny, unfortunately. As someone who must act drastically regardless of the cost because he apparently viewed history as being overdetermined. Similar to German military and political leaders in 1914, in fact.
Maybe reassess your "very intelligent" friend? I guess he's still probably intelligent. But the stuff he sputtered out indicates he's not reading very smart anymore, perhaps instead more satisfyingly honing his tribal instincts and immersing himself in the domestic shit pool, yelling HILLARY! EMAILS! SERVER! CROWDSTRIKE! Either that or he's embarrasingly ignorant about how a business like Crowdstrike operates.
I'm late to the party, but just adding that I think the analysis doesn't do itself any favors by not mentioning Zelensky. That's another big difference with Afghanistan. Leadership has become such a banal concept here, but it really does matter and his PR in the war has been unmatched.
Twitterization, made up word, Edwin Newman said in one of his language books "never ise or wise your words". Anyhow Richard Hanania sound like he scoring his proficiency on the children's board game of "RISK"?