billbindc

Ah...correct. This wasn't bad though: "Make no mistake: these actions have no legitimacy. The United States will always honor Ukraine's internationally recognized borders. We will continue to support Ukraine's efforts to regain control of its territory by strengthening its hand militarily and diplomatically."

Biden just promised to defend "every inch of Ukraine with our NATO allies". Pretty much the opposite of standing down. Given the stakes, Washington is very unlikely to blink.

I think everything's on the table but no idea what's been decided. The key objective is to avoid a general exchange.

Apologies but I've been talking to a lot of folks and nobody seems to see any other way this ends. He nailed his flag to the mast with the annexations. He deep sixed any possibility of even influencing the Germans with the promise of oil when he blew up the pipeline. He blew off China's private warnings and India's open ones. He has so denuded Russian power centers of capable people that there is nobody to stop him. When you have a mad dog with nukes without any diplomatic, economic or domestic political considerations he needs to worry about except that losing the war he's in puts that all at risk then...yes...that's likely where this is headed.

From Putin's speech. Given that he made a similar statement about the pipelines I'm going to revise my earlier conclusion that it had to be some internal nationalist thing with Dugin. Putin's judgement is so out of whack he may think this sort of thing helps him.

After watching that speech, I'm not convinced we should read too much strategy into Russian deployments. Putin is operating without much recourse to staffing or external input. The strategy, such as it is, is whatever is going on in his head. I would expect we will see irrational choices be reinforced, key sectors ignored and generally a shambolic lurch towards the first use of a nuclear weapon in a war since 1945.

The point wasn't to suddenly vault into NATO. It was to blunt the effect of Putin's speech in media and elsewhere. Vlad rambled on in his weird way through a list of grievances and gnomic statements about nukes which gave Zelensky the opportunity to message with a clear statement of Ukrainian defiance and alliance with the West. Russians may not hear it but China, India and the rest of the world does. Smart.

I wouldn't over read into the speech. Putin will, if he feels like he must, not hesitate to drop a tactical nuke. He will then simply blame it on NATO.

Not a friend and I do appreciate your contempt for a certain kind of think tanker apparatcik. But I think he's really on to something about the choices and mistakes of the Russian elite. We can read his book when it comes out and see if "pants" is the right term. Fiona Hill is, here, quite on point: https://www.newyorker.com/news/letter-from-bidens-washington/what-if-were-already-fighting-the-third-world-war-with-russia?mbid=social_twitter&utm_brand=tny&utm_source=twitter&utm_social-type=owned&utm_medium=social

Gabrielian speaks Russian. It's going to be interesting to hear about her background.

Absolutely superb analysis. If we survive the next 18 months his book is going to be great: https://ogs-and-ofzs.ghost.io/empire-of-austerity/

I cannot claim to know for sure which way it will go but you can bet it's being furiously discussed, analyzed and gamed out as we speak. I do not think backing down is a viable strategy because Russia using this gambit isn't a defensive strategy...it's an offensive one. Were it the former we could let it go. Since any future dictator with nuke could then expect to get away with the 'quick grab, drop a nuke' gambit it's very clearly the latter. Just think of Taiwan and those globally crucial chip factories. It's something we cannot let pass.

The simplest answer is that Putin is burning his bridges in order to signal willingness to escalate to nuclear weapons.

Two things are unassailably true: 1. Russia is losing in Ukraine because of Ukrainian will and Western arms. 2. Russia has 6000+ nuclear weapons and can initiate the end of civilization. The conclusions that I draw from those facts are that NATO *already* has the initiative. Fact 1 is why Russia is fumbling around in the escalation drawer for less conventional ways to change the course of the war. Wrecking pipelines is about trying to affect ally unity and political support. Threatening nukes is about trying to destroy Ukrainian and Western will to fight. Cyber attacks are already in full swing and more extreme versions will happen. The course of the war is going our way and it's Putin who must regain the initiative or give it up. Fact 2 is why we don't want to speed up the war's course. We can't militarily overthrow Putin. We *can* out fight his army while sanctions, political developments and battlefield losses erode his ability to continue. I get it, we want it over soon. But forcing it just increases the chances that panic or a mistake sends things into an apocalyptic scenario.

I put this in the category as the "escalate to deescalate" takes. Galeev is making the mistake of trying to project a frame onto Putin and what is unknowable going on in his head. It's smarter and safer, imho, to simply pay attention to what Putin is doing. And what he's doing is escalating in a step by step fashion across a broad range of theaters of conflict. He is making no case at all to the Russian people that NATO or the US is unbeatable. Quite the opposite, in fact.

I don't think Putin would be affected much by the entry of limited NATO forces at this point. That's not to say he wants it but he's already escalating at NATO with things like the pipeline sabotage. And as you note, in some ways it would help him at home...to mobilize, etc...not necessarily as an escape clause.

The two articles that I posted above do not address Russian economic capability. Sanctions effects are going to become much more pronounced for Russians this winter and will become worse and worse going forward. This will greatly damage the ability of the Russian military to function. It will also completely destroy the last vestiges of Putin's old compact with the Russian people. In addition, it's very clear now that China, India and other allies have given Russia very clear warnings against going nuclear and he cannot expect any change in their willingness to help him in this war by doing so. Will is not an endless resource and tends to be more fragile in states that constantly feel the need to vocally assert it. The biggest question left for us is whether or not that will persists past the point of using nuclear weapons. At this point, I'd have to say that it does. We'll see.

A suggestion: think less about dubious ethnic essentialism and/or pretty fantasizing about a post-Russia world. Instead, try to imagine how this war ends. It's a far more salient question and harder likely than you think. https://www.newyorker.com/culture/annals-of-inquiry/how-the-war-in-ukraine-might-end

https://faridaily.substack.com/p/putin-always-chooses-escalation This is well worth reading in the sense that describing how the iceberg and the Titanic met is well worth reading. The inescapable conclusion is that for the war to end, Russia must be clearly seen to have lost and Putin must be dead or gone. Preferably both.

This, all damn day. Lamh-laidir aboo!

Funny...I just got done typing something quite similar. Kraze...you can either have your just war or indiscriminately hate every Russian. You can't have both.

Or an underwater drone (like the Swedes found a couple of years ago) and the exact location of the pipes (which you built) relative to NATO jurisdiction.

There are lots of counter arguments to the way you are framing the situation. But this seems like a weird place to have them.

To be clear, I'm not saying it's a *good* idea or will work in any way. It's just what they've got at the moment.

Mark Galeotti, with a sober take: https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/the-nord-stream-blasts-are-putin-s-warning-shot-to-the-west