In reply to tuna55 :
The smiling Russians carrying pictures of Stalin in recent Victory Day parades suggests the Russian people may not share your assessment.
When "every reasonable country" doesn't include China, India, and quite a few others, it starts to lose its meaning. I'm not going to go down the rational actor path again, but suffice it to say that I do not agree with your interpretation of Putin as irrational.
Long-term strategies can work - NATO is a prime example - but because geopolitics are always in flux, all strategies have a shelf life. But that's not really the point I'm driving at. The basic question is the primary objective of policy: is it to end the fighting, or is it to punish Putin? In some ways they are mutually exclusive, within the limitations the West is placing on its involvement. The sanctions regime makes sense, because it undermines Putin's domestic support, at least among some demographics, and hurts Russia's ability to prosecute the war and pursue its objectives globally. Charging Putin with war crimes only reinforces his narrative as victim, and does nothing to encourage him toward a cease-fire.
tuna55
MegaDork
4/5/22 1:57 p.m.
02Pilot said:
In reply to tuna55 :
The smiling Russians carrying pictures of Stalin in recent Victory Day parades suggests the Russian people may not share your assessment.
When "every reasonable country" doesn't include China, India, and quite a few others, it starts to lose its meaning. I'm not going to go down the rational actor path again, but suffice it to say that I do not agree with your interpretation of Putin as irrational.
Long-term strategies can work - NATO is a prime example - but because geopolitics are always in flux, all strategies have a shelf life. But that's not really the point I'm driving at. The basic question is the primary objective of policy: is it to end the fighting, or is it to punish Putin? In some ways they are mutually exclusive, within the limitations the West is placing on its involvement. The sanctions regime makes sense, because it undermines Putin's domestic support, at least among some demographics, and hurts Russia's ability to prosecute the war and pursue its objectives globally. Charging Putin with war crimes only reinforces his narrative as victim, and does nothing to encourage him toward a cease-fire.
Perhaps our definitions of rational differ. You and I barely act rational on our good days. I do not agree in some high-minded strategy which doesn't respond quickly and accurately in the name of a long term goal, which I suspect will never be realized, and would only if the status quo and rationality exist in perpetuity.
I have no doubt that some Russians laud Stalin, and think Putin is continuing that cause. Based on what I have available, which is admittedly very little, I'd say it's roughly half.
I would define rational behavior in this context as actions which are calculated to have the best chance to achieve one's aims, given objective analysis of the available evidence.
02Pilot said:
I would define rational behavior in this context as actions which are calculated to have the best chance to achieve one's aims, given objective analysis of the available evidence.
Exactly, we can't determine his level of rationality, as we don't know what Putin's actual aims are. We can only interpret the situation from our own perspective, and infer his aims from what we observe. I clearly believe he's moved on to "plan B" as the initial offensive against Kyiv has proven to be a bridge to far. So, if he wanted to install a puppet government to govern the Ukraine by proxy that is now off the table. It appears he's repositioning his forces to shore up their hold on the separatist regions and secure the landbridge to Crimea, but that's just my opinion from the outside looking in.
Ukraine has asked that Russia be removed from the UN Security Council.
If that happens would it be enough to drive Putin into using WMDs?
In reply to Mr_Asa :
I wonder if the pilot is permanently leaving Russia as well? I would guess so, as there would likely be a price on his head after that. Hmm, move to a new country, get 500 grand, I've heard of worse deals.
Edit: from that conversation posted on twitter, apparently Ukraine posted a graphic with prices they'll pay for Russian equipment.
In reply to QuasiMofo (John Brown) :
It's not going to happen. The Soviet Union was a permanent member of the Security Council under Article 23 of the UN Charter, and Russia inherited that position. I'm far from an expert on the subject, but I don't think there is a mechanism in the Charter for removing a permanent member.
On top of that, it's a bad idea. The UN is a pretty useless organization, but it only functions at all by maintaining universal membership. Once you start kicking states out - and if Russia were removed from the Security Council, I suspect it would withdraw completely - the whole edifice collapses. And Russia certainly isn't going to withdraw itself, even temporarily; they learned that lesson in 1950, when they walked out in protest and the UN voted a military response to Korea. As to Russia's behavior post-hypothetical removal, I don't think it would matter much one way or the other, except perhaps to accelerate it's lean toward China.
In reply to 06HHR :
I generally agree, though it's important to separate aims and interests on the one hand, and methods and actions on the other. His aims have not changed; what is possible has, and thus his actions have. The primary policy objectives here are to stabilize and extend his own position (and Russia's with it), to undermine Ukraine's ability to exist as an independent state, and to divide and weaken the US and NATO. How much of these can be achieved through the present action, and at what cost, remains an open question.
wae
PowerDork
4/6/22 8:15 a.m.
I thought this clip from CNN was interesting:
Towards the 3 minute mark, a woman in the US who is from Russia talks about calling home to her relatives and how they've bought the Kremlin's story.
infinitenexus said:
In reply to Mr_Asa :
I wonder if the pilot is permanently leaving Russia as well? I would guess so, as there would likely be a price on his head after that. Hmm, move to a new country, get 500 grand, I've heard of worse deals.
Maybe he'll move to Montana, marry a round American woman, and raise rabbits.
Tom_Spangler (Forum Supporter) said:
infinitenexus said:
In reply to Mr_Asa :
I wonder if the pilot is permanently leaving Russia as well? I would guess so, as there would likely be a price on his head after that. Hmm, move to a new country, get 500 grand, I've heard of worse deals.
Maybe he'll move to Montana, marry a round American woman, and raise rabbits.
And drive from state to state.
The Russians appear to be learning:
Mariupol city council reports that russians started to sweep away the traces of their war crimes in the town and burn the bodies of murdered residents en masse in mobile crematoria
02Pilot said:
In reply to QuasiMofo (John Brown) :
It's not going to happen. The Soviet Union was a permanent member of the Security Council under Article 23 of the UN Charter, and Russia inherited that position. I'm far from an expert on the subject, but I don't think there is a mechanism in the Charter for removing a permanent member.
Not technically correct. In 1991 Russia sent a letter to the United Nations stating their intention of ASSUMING the position of the former USSR, which had been formally vacated, with the non-unanimous support of the former member states. The legality of this move has been questioned ever since. The Russian Federation has never applied for nor been given member status, unlike other former members of the USSR, and countless other countries.
It would only take an amendment to Article 23 to incorporate a mechanism.
PS. Ukraine is a founding member of the UN.
In reply to llysgennad :
That may be the de jure situation, but the de facto situation is as I described. Good luck amending the Charter with China in play.
I had also heard that the admission of Ukraine into the UN (or creation of Ukraine?) had something to do with Russia (Soviets) wanted to get more votes. No idea if that has any truth or reality.
Also of note: I believe Zelenski has been using the word genocide in some of his speeches. There is apparently a very good reason for that. In that the UN, in the case of a genocide, MUST act. Not sure how exactly. Realistically, it would be hard to call what is going on a genocide. Brutal and completely unnecessary certainly, but genocide is a bit of a stretch.
On the subject of war crimes accusations, the WSJ had an editorial yesterday that offered what seems to me a very sensible approach. Rather than worrying about Putin and his civilian inner circle, concentrate on military officers, and name them publicly, along with detailed accounts of the crimes with which they are charged. If soldiers start hearing their own names associated with war crimes charges, or their subordinates start hearing of their COs being named, it could help to undermine morale, which would be a useful outcome. Far better to proceed in this direction than going after Putin, at least if the desired result is to weaken the Russian military.
In reply to 02Pilot :
Agreed 100%. There is no proof whatsoever that such atrocities (such a small word for such a horrible thing) is coming down from orders on top. Bring accountability to those who ordered it and carried out those orders, and let it settle upwards as the courts discover.
And IIRC it is a legal precedent that "just following orders" is not an out. An officer must recognize and ignore an illegal order.
Pete. (l33t FS) said:
In reply to 02Pilot :
An officer must recognize and ignore an illegal order.
Well, under our constitution it is illegal, but who knows in Mother Russia? Did they sign the Geneva Convention?
VolvoHeretic said:
Pete. (l33t FS) said:
In reply to 02Pilot :
An officer must recognize and ignore an illegal order.
Well, under our constitution it is illegal, but who knows in Mother Russia? Did they sign the Geneva Convention?
You know that is a brilliant question.
Does Russia actually reap the rewards from the contracts of the Soviet Union without having to pay the debt the Soviet Union incurs?
Is Russia actually the same entity listed in the UN as a founding member? Does the inclusion of Russia automatically include states separated from the fall of the Soviet Union?
What legalities are involved with this hairsplitting?
Again the idea is to avoid nuclear fall out with Russia, but at some point there will be western boots in Ukraine (actually I foresee no ground forces but rather a drone blitzkrieg of massive proportion involving drones of all sizes and capabilities)
I was reviewing some materials for my lecture later today, one of which was George Kennan's 1946 "Long Telegram" that laid the foundations of the US policy of containment in the early years of the Cold War. This passage still seems quite relevant:
At bottom of Kremlin's neurotic view of world affairs is traditional and instinctive Russian sense of insecurity. Originally, this was insecurity of a peaceful agricultural people trying to live on vast exposed plain in neighborhood of fierce nomadic peoples. To this was added, as Russia came into contact with economically advanced West, fear of more competent, more powerful, more highly organized societies in that area. But this latter type of insecurity was one which afflicted rather Russian rulers than Russian people; for Russian rulers have invariably sensed that their rule was relatively archaic in form fragile and artificial in its psychological foundation, unable to stand comparison or contact with political systems of Western countries. For this reason they have always feared foreign penetration, feared direct contact between Western world and their own, feared what would happen if Russians learned truth about world without or if foreigners learned truth about world within. And they have learned to seek security only in patient but deadly struggle for total destruction of rival power, never in compacts and compromises with it.
The whole document is fascinating and well worth reading, both for its historical value and its insights into Russia that remain valuable in the current context.
"Dear Vlad, nobody wants your E36M3y country. Please pass this along to the Pakistanis as well.
Warmest regards,
The Rest of the World"
tuna55
MegaDork
4/7/22 11:45 a.m.
In reply to 02Pilot :
That's really interesting. He's a realist like you, but I do agree with his assessments, and it more confirms what I have learned from reading Dobbs and such than revolutionizes it, but that's great. I am not certain the the degree to which he is right, that Stalin himself did not have an objective view of the outside world, based on his behavior at Yalta. I suppose there is always an element of lying so much that you begin to believe your own lies. You can see this with some politicians, pundits, and actors who have trouble getting out of character. Then again, if deception is generational, then perhaps the original lies are so old and deep that indeed the current liar didn't create them.
Anyway, thanks for sharing this, I enjoyed it, especially these parts:
This speaks directly to Russian advertising on FB and others during our election cycles:
Some in NATO and the EU were paying close attention to the lesson here:
And I'll add my favorite soviet-eque quote. Bonus if you can get the reference without looking it up.
"You are erratic. Conflicted. Disorganised. Every decision is debated, every action questioned, every individual entitled to their own small opinion. You lack harmony, cohesion, greatness. It will be your undoing."
