Russian Games: 120,000-140,000 Russian Troops on the Ukrainian border…

[DMC]

21 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

What's the downside of preemptively putting the sanctions in place?

Well, the standard logic is if the threat of sanctions are acting as a deterrent, then making that threat a reality would no longer deter.  More pragmatically, there is certainly a concern that these sanctions will be punitive enough they will upend the international economy.  I'm also pretty sure there are significant legal hurdles for the EU to impose preemptive sanctions.  Finally, of course, there's the political reality of getting everybody on board.

[Kalbear]

4 minutes ago, DMC said:

Well, the standard logic is if the threat of sanctions are acting as a deterrent, then making that threat a reality would no longer deter.  More pragmatically, there is certainly a concern that these sanctions will be punitive enough they will upend the international economy.  I'm also pretty sure there are significant legal hurdles for the EU to impose preemptive sanctions.  Finally, of course, there's the political reality of getting everybody on board.

Yeah, it's probably just easier for everyone if the US goes and sends the military in

much better option IMO

[Werthead]

Yeah, the sanctions the West are planning to unleash on Russia are really not-fucking-around territory. They'd effectively sever Russia from the international, global banking and payments system, potentially block Russian oligarchs from their beloved second and third homes in London and New York (if not set in motion asset seizures) and potentially just collapse the Russian economy outright. China could help them out, but China can't subsidise the entire country for the duration of the crisis (unless they wanted to damage their economy in the process).

Effectively, there's no telling what would happen if you pulled that trigger. Civil war, a coup, a popular rising, a refugee crisis, some nutter letting off a nuke. It's not a button you press without thinking about it carefully.

During the Cold War, the West and the USSR and its partners effectively ran segregated, separated economies so this kind of thing wasn't possible, at least not on the same scale, but after the fall of the Berlin Wall, Russia integrated itself into the international economic system, which I guess they are now rather regretting.

Russia is being bloody stupid. Biden basically gave them a green (or at least yellow) flag to mount a "minor incursion" into the east of the country and they seem to have instead positioned themselves to try to invade the whole thing.

Quote

Yeah, it's probably just easier for everyone if the US goes and sends the military in

Is anyone suggesting that?

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

2 minutes ago, Werthead said:

Biden basically gave them a green (or at least yellow) flag to mount a "minor incursion" into the east of the country

I still can’t believe Biden said that.  

[DMC]

23 minutes ago, Kalibuster said:

Yeah, it's probably just easier for everyone if the US goes and sends the military in

much better option IMO

Huh?  Don't know why this is a response to my post.  Is this what a Kalibuster is?

[Kalbear]

4 minutes ago, DMC said:

Huh?  Don't know why this is a response to my post.  Is this what a Kalibuster is?

Sure! Or maybe not.

I guess my reading of what you and others have said is that the economic sanctions that the US would do would trigger such a global economic problem for Europe and others that it is somehow not desirous to do that - whereas actively going to war in some limited scope would be, weirdly, less economically hostile to the world. 

Also, at least for the US it is significantly easier for POTUS to do something like actually go to war or at least fight people on a limited basis than it is to get sanctions and other laws passed. Which is...maybe not great!

[DMC]

1 minute ago, Kalibuster said:

I guess my reading of what you and others have said is that the economic sanctions that the US would do would trigger such a global economic problem for Europe and others that it is somehow not desirous to do that - whereas actively going to war in some limited scope would be, weirdly, less economically hostile to the world. 

No, definitely was just answering Ty's question about the downsides - or impediments - to imposing preemptive sanctions.

3 minutes ago, Kalibuster said:

Also, at least for the US it is significantly easier for POTUS to do something like actually go to war or at least fight people on a limited basis than it is to get sanctions and other laws passed. Which is...maybe not great!

Certainly true, generally.  Not really in this case.  Nobody across the spectrum wants the US to send troops to Ukraine -- whereas there's virtually universal agreement sanctions should either be imposed now or if they invade.

[Maithanet]

43 minutes ago, Werthead said:

During the Cold War, the West and the USSR and its partners effectively ran segregated, separated economies so this kind of thing wasn't possible, at least not on the same scale, but after the fall of the Berlin Wall, Russia integrated itself into the international economic system, which I guess they are now rather regretting.

Are they though?  I think that without joining the international economy Russia would have been in economic decline for the past 30 years and there's a good chance Ukraine might be a match for them militarily.  Or at the very least the Russian military would be significantly less formidable and well funded than it is. 

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

1 hour ago, DMC said:

Well, the standard logic is if the threat of sanctions are acting as a deterrent, then making that threat a reality would no longer deter.  More pragmatically, there is certainly a concern that these sanctions will be punitive enough they will upend the international economy.  I'm also pretty sure there are significant legal hurdles for the EU to impose preemptive sanctions.  Finally, of course, there's the political reality of getting everybody on board.

If I have the timeline correct, sanctions wee floated a while back after forces began to mount on the border. Since then Putin has taken a number of aggressive steps, so the threat as a means of deterrence didn’t work, and now it appears they’re positioning themselves for a large scale invasion. If you think that’s the case and that Putin is not bluffing, why not hit them right now before they enter Ukraine? Waiting seems useless now that we’re at this point.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

Just now, Tywin et al. said:

If I have the timeline correct, sanctions wee floated a while back after forces began to mount on the border. Since then Putin has taken a number of aggressive steps, so the threat as a means of deterrence didn’t work, and now it appears they’re positioning themselves for a large scale invasion. If you think that’s the case and that Putin is not bluffing, why not hit them right now before they enter Ukraine? Waiting seems useless now that we’re at this point.

We may not be able to get all necessary parties on board for scantions without an actual invasion.

[DMC]

5 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

Since then Putin has taken a number of aggressive steps, so the threat as a means of deterrence didn’t work, and now it appears they’re positioning themselves for a large scale invasion.

It would still be a preemptive sanction, and thus the legal hurdles and difficulty getting everyone on board is still there.  I'm not really interested in having an argument on whether the threat of sanctions is still acting as a deterrent or whether Putin is bluffing or not - nobody really knows anyway.  Regardless, though, I don't think it makes much of a difference whether you impose them now or when they invade -- as long as everybody actually really is prepared to impose "crippling" sanctions immediately instead of just saying so.

[Werthead]

The problem is that Russia has established its goals and accepting anything else is not really in Putin's DNA, though he has been scared into backing off before (particularly over the USA bombing targets in Syria, where he threatened reprisals against the USA and then did absolutely nothing).

My guess here is that Russia can see a situation where they invade Ukraine, topple the current government, install a pro-Russian government with the illusion of free elections and then leave and everything is fine and back to the pre-2014 situation, with the implicit threat that Russia can just send in troops "on request" at any point after that. However, that is a mind-bogglingly optimistic. The sanctions that the West can slam onto Russia are horrendous and far worse than anything they've seen before, and the rich oligarchs who actually much prefer living outside Russia in much richer countries might suddenly find themselves cut off. There is also the possibility that Ukraine will bloody the Russian forces much harder than expected, and a mass-populist uprising will simply sweep any puppet government out of power again. The Russians would then have to decide on the optics of firing on crowds of civilians having just invaded and overrun the country.

There is no real good outcome that can result from that, not for Ukraine and not for Russia either.

[HoodedCrow]

There has been a very long set up for this invasion. Maybe, if all goes well, they can make Biden look bad, distract from political dissent at home, expand Russia, exploit racism in Britain and the U.S., discredit weakened democracies, push white supremacy, push authoritarianism, promote the venal orange puppet, and give them their military something to do. Putin seems psychopathic…as it is defined.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

Could the move into Belarus be a feint to pull troops away from the Donbass so Russians can easily push all the way to Odessa?

[Maithanet]

 

5 minutes ago, Werthead said:

The problem is that Russia has established its goals and accepting anything else is not really in Putin's DNA, though he has been scared into backing off before (particularly over the USA bombing targets in Syria, where he threatened reprisals against the USA and then did absolutely nothing).

My guess here is that Russia can see a situation where they invade Ukraine, topple the current government, install a pro-Russian government with the illusion of free elections and then leave and everything is fine and back to the pre-2014 situation, with the implicit threat that Russia can just send in troops "on request" at any point after that. However, that is a mind-bogglingly optimistic. The sanctions that the West can slam onto Russia are horrendous and far worse than anything they've seen before, and the rich oligarchs who actually much prefer living outside Russia in much richer countries might suddenly find themselves cut off. There is also the possibility that Ukraine will bloody the Russian forces much harder than expected, and a mass-populist uprising will simply sweep any puppet government out of power again. The Russians would then have to decide on the optics of firing on crowds of civilians having just invaded and overrun the country.

There is no real good outcome that can result from that, not for Ukraine and not for Russia either.

I mostly agree.  Any Pro-Russia regime installed at the barrel of a gun would have a huge legitimacy problem, and would probably topple as soon as Russia isn't directly backing it.  So would Russia be stationing troops in Ukraine indefinitely?  Because if so, you're just looking at an occupation, guerrilla warfare and a steady stream of Russian casualties.  Not exactly a winning formula for long term popularity if you're Putin.  Not to mention the impact of sanctions. 

And IF this is the plan, why now?  Why not last year when Trump was still in power and he would almost assuredly do nothing?  Or why not wait three years when there's a real possibility he'll be back in power?  It's not like NATO is going to be expanding into Ukraine in the next three years.  The timing makes no sense, unless this is being done for domestic, rather than international reasons.  And if the plan is to use this conflict to bolster domestic support, then we circle back to the argument that this seems like a plan doomed to failure.  Casualties + sanctions are not a great way to improve your domestic situation. 

[Gorn]

10 minutes ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

Could the move into Belarus be a feint to pull troops away from the Donbass so Russians can easily push all the way to Odessa?

That's what I was thinking as well. Trying to actually take Kyiv would be pure idiocy from a strategic point of view.

[Kalbear]

My suspicion is that Putin believes that the US  will back down from super scary sanctions because they'll hurt Europe and Biden doesn't want to do that too much right now, and they'll hurt Biden. And the cost of allowing a Ukraine invasion for Biden is not as bad as the cost of having a major recession. 

Basically I think - and I vaguely concur - that Biden has too much on his plate right now and will back down and give in as long as the cost of war isn't too insanely bad.

[Kalbear]

The other, other thing to consider is how potent Russia could be if it wanted to attack the US via network. The US is very, very vulnerable, and our sanctions could trigger a lot of counterattacks that the US would be very hard-pressed to deal with. And the reprisal options the US has at that point after they've put out those sanctions are not particularly great; the Russian infrastructure and systems are not as vulnerable (because they largely aren't on the internet) and the ability to destabilize Russia isn't as strong due to the autocracy in place; it ain't like we'll be able to stoke ethnic hardships or divide Russia into parties. 

 

[Werthead]

9 minutes ago, Kalibuster said:

My suspicion is that Putin believes that the US  will back down from super scary sanctions because they'll hurt Europe and Biden doesn't want to do that too much right now, and they'll hurt Biden. And the cost of allowing a Ukraine invasion for Biden is not as bad as the cost of having a major recession. 

Basically I think - and I vaguely concur - that Biden has too much on his plate right now and will back down and give in as long as the cost of war isn't too insanely bad.

I think simply allowing the upending the geopolitical situation that has endured in Europe since 1990, to the global benefit of the United States, is not a great idea.

Allowing Russia to conquer Ukraine puts Russian troops on the doorsteps of NATO member-states Romania, Slovakia, Hungary and Poland, and any Russian adventurism into those countries triggers either war with the United States or the collapse of NATO, neither of which is a situation the United States wants to deal with. Ukraine is as useful a buffer state to NATO as it is to Russia in that manner. The realpolitik situation is Ukrainian entry to either NATO or the EU is simply non-viable in the near future, so Russia really had nothing to worry about and they knew that.

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

28 minutes ago, Kalibuster said:

Basically I think - and I vaguely concur - that Biden has too much on his plate right now and will back down and give in as long as the cost of war isn't too insanely bad.

I don't think Biden can afford to back down now though every option he has seems to be a bad one.