GIRTHQUAKE said:
In reply to 02Pilot :
I see your point, however I don't agree at all. To allow Russia an attempt to save face, is to give it the inkling of hope in the future that it can attempt this new wave of Imperialism again, screaming that every country is secretly controlled by fascists and glutting itself on conspiracies. Even worse, is that allowing them any measure of success can also embolden other nations with such dictorial ideals- there's a good reason why China has been watching this so intently.
Russia has to loose. They have to loose totally and unequivocally so that their personal fable is broken, and in doing so have the potential of finally moving forwards from it's corrupt stagnation of literal generations.
The problem I have with this approach is that Russia truly losing in this sense - as in unconditional surrender and the collapse of the regime - was never on the table and is not attainable; to consider it is at odds with the vast majority of conflict resolutions in human history. Unfortunately, America's preferred point of reference for war outcomes is based on WW2, but that war was a complete anomaly in terms of how it was ended. Most conflicts end with some level of defeat for one side, but it is very often fairly limited in consequence in the medium- and long-terms. Regime change as a result is uncommon, and almost never externally generated.
Let me offer a couple examples to illustrate where my thinking comes from. The Crimean War (1854-6) saw the formation of an unlikely coalition formed to oppose Russian aggression against the Ottoman Empire. This group of countries committed sufficient forces to halt the Russian advance, but never intended or attempted to overthrow or even destabilize the Russian government; it was simply an effort to oppose a destabilizing move in the region, one that potentially negatively affected the countries that supported the Ottomans. Fighting continued (longer than it would have if the Allied forces were more competently employed) until the Russians recognized that continued efforts would only result in greater loss, both militarily and economically. The negotiated peace that followed was quite limited in scope, forcing the Russians to return occupied territories (some were placed under international control) and demilitarized the Black Sea. This arrangement maintained regional peace until the outbreak of war in 1914.
The Vietnam War shows similar patterns. The Vietnamese communists were supported by the Soviet Union and China basically in proportion to the effort of the American commitment. Never did either communist Great Power attempt to expand the war to undermine the American system of government; they were content to keep America engaged in a costly local war, knowing that if they extended their efforts too far the US retained significant escalatory capabilities. The Soviets certainly provided intelligence (their intel trawlers shadowed US carrier groups, for example) to the North, along with enough weapons to prevent American victory. They did not, for example, provide the Vietnamese with weapons that could strike US bases in Thailand or the Philippines, nor to provide a serious threat to US carrier groups. The managed their efforts with an eye not to escalating but to achieving limited objectives.
Putin may be reprehensible and dangerous, but the simple fact is that there is zero political will or military capability to forcibly remove him, so we have to deal with him. The most effective way to do so, if history is any guide, is to limit his capabilities while minimizing the dangers inherent in the situation. Doing this is consistent with maintaining a robust Western military capability, the mere existence of which is often sufficient to defuse a crisis or dissuade a leader. Employing that force is a last resort because of the extreme risks associated with it. (I would argue that the perceived weakness of European NATO members is in part responsible for Putin's decision-making on Ukraine, but that's another discussion).
As far as changing Russian society, all I can say is good luck. The only successful examples of externally altering the fundamental social order of nations came after the existing ones were flattened and set on fire in 1945, or the depredations of the nomadic steppe peoples that involved slaughtering entire populations. I'd rather live with a Putin-led corrupt, dysfunctional Russia than try to create conditions for effectively changing the system.
