The Ukraine Question

[xerx]

What makes you think Russia wouldn't have invaded anyway and/or continued to annex parts of Ukraine? For Putin it's all about restoring the "former glory" and Ukraine is insolent for not simply joining mother Russia.

If it was that simple, then why is Putin only invading now? He has had plenty of opportunity before (while Ukraine was weaker) but had attempted to absorb Ukraine by infiltrating its politics. The fact that someone is an expansionist doesn't make them irrational (and Putin, in particular, unless his mental state has changed or this outward impression has been fabricated, appears to be a rational and calculating individual who plays the long game). If there was a less messy way of pulling Ukraine into Russia's orbit, why wouldn't he have taken it unless something was forcing his hand?

If the premise is that aligning with NATO would have kept Ukraine safe, that attempt has immediately failed. This isn't some moral philosophy college class, and we aren't debating whether or not to press the "Enforce Freedom" button. Instead, joining an international organization is a gradual process, not a binary transition, and Putin threw a wrench in the works just as the process had started (and could have at any point).

It would be nice if Russia got its own Kemal Ataturk instead of Putin, someone who cut ties with the USSR (or Tsarist Russia or whatever) in the same way that Ataturk cut ties with Turkey's Ottoman past. But Russia didn't get that and we have to accept that reality.


On the other hand, if this war is a consequence of some bigger game (some internal power struggle within the Kremlin, some attempt to overthrow the dollar's reserve status, a Putin project to demonstrate his power, some combination thereof or something else entirely), then this isn't immediately obvious to me and I don't know enough about Russia to speculate authoritatively. But dismissing the NATO possibility outright is stubborn.

[xerx]

Ukraine was not a NATO member when Russia invaded, and neither Russia nor Ukraine existed when NATO was formed.

So your "if" statement is not even relevant.

I said 'affiliation' not 'membership'. Ukraine wasn't given a path to NATO membership, but it was edging closer to NATO (by e.g. training with them) while its leadership was attempting to secure membership. The boundary between official and unofficial can be blurred.

[xerx]

BTW, why isn't anyone talking about the possibility that NATO expansion has made the alliance weaker? NATO decisions require consensus, an objective that is diluted by having more members with potentially conflicting interests.

A (very conceivable) victory by someone like Marine Le Pen (who has shown pro-Putin sympathies) could torpedo resolutions aimed at Russia. A coalition of mutually-reinforcing authoritarian, anti-globalist leaders may be all that it takes to gum up NATO decision-making.

[lynn]

I'm curious about Arestovych's sociotype. He predicted the war in 2019.

[Adam Strange]

I'm curious about Arestovych's sociotype. He predicted the war in 2019.

He looks like an LIE to me. An LIE who is very frustrated at not being able to do things in the real world.

[Not A Communist Shill]

A basic point that repeatedly goes unmentioned WRT NATO: If affiliating with NATO was meant to deter the violation of Ukrainian sovereignty, that idea has already dramatically failed. Russia invaded before that gradual process could be completed.

And even if Ukraine does win in the end, thousands of Ukrainians will still be dead; Ukraine's infrastructure will still be devastated.

As far as policy decisions are concerned, it has achieved the exact opposite of its stated purpose.

Being allied with the Soviet Union didn't prevent Soviet Union invasions.

[Northstar]

I said 'affiliation' not 'membership'. Ukraine wasn't given a path to NATO membership, but it was edging closer to NATO (by e.g. training with them) while its leadership was attempting to secure membership. The boundary between official and unofficial can be blurred.

That's definitely a good reason to invade a country.

[Northstar]

If it was that simple, then why is Putin only invading now? He has had plenty of opportunity before (while Ukraine was weaker) but had attempted to absorb Ukraine by infiltrating its politics. The fact that someone is an expansionist doesn't make them irrational (and Putin, in particular, unless his mental state has changed or this outward impression has been fabricated, appears to be a rational and calculating individual who plays the long game). If there was a less messy way of pulling Ukraine into Russia's orbit, why wouldn't he have taken it unless something was forcing his hand?

If the premise is that aligning with NATO would have kept Ukraine safe, that attempt has immediately failed. This isn't some moral philosophy college class, and we aren't debating whether or not to press the "Enforce Freedom" button. Instead, joining an international organization is a gradual process, not a binary transition, and Putin threw a wrench in the works just as the process had started (and could have at any point).

It would be nice if Russia got its own Kemal Ataturk instead of Putin, someone who cut ties with the USSR (or Tsarist Russia or whatever) in the same way that Ataturk cut ties with Turkey's Ottoman past. But Russia didn't get that and we have to accept that reality.


On the other hand, if this war is a consequence of some bigger game (some internal power struggle within the Kremlin, some attempt to overthrow the dollar's reserve status, a Putin project to demonstrate his power, some combination thereof or something else entirely), then this isn't immediately obvious to me and I don't know enough about Russia to speculate authoritatively. But dismissing the NATO possibility outright is stubborn.

I'm sure he thought now was a very good time. Putin is getting older and he knows his "long game" can't go on forever because he doesn't live forever. I don't think he cares about messiness or the human cost, that much is very obvious.

That Putin attacked is proof that aligning with NATO instead of Russia was the right choice. Will NATO attack you if you don't join them? I don't know why you think this is some kind of moral philosophy class, but you smell like a russophile to me.

You really think that accepting reality means doing as Russia wants and not acting like a real sovereign country?

[Not A Communist Shill]

The Ukraine war as seen from Estonia

[xerx]

I'm sure he thought now was a very good time. Putin is getting older and he knows his "long game" can't go on forever because he doesn't live forever. I don't think he cares about messiness or the human cost, that much is very obvious.

That Putin attacked is proof that aligning with NATO instead of Russia was the right choice. Will NATO attack you if you don't join them? I don't know why you think this is some kind of moral philosophy class, but you smell like a russophile to me.

You really think that accepting reality means doing as Russia wants and not acting like a real sovereign country?

If his intent is to pass on a great legacy, he probably does care about messiness.

He probably guessed that war crimes would justify bigger sanctions. He probably wants to extract as much value as possible from Ukraine's economy, which, among other things, has intellectual capital, important commodities, and supplies Russia's aerospace industry with needed parts.

Former CIA director David Petraeus (I *think* it was him but could be wrong) speculated that some of Russia's attacks on civilians may be due to poor accuracy, the result of inferior targeting systems.

but you smell like a russophile to me

No! I'm not any kind of Russophile or Russian nationalist, which is among the most obnoxious forms of nationalism there is. Only French nationalism is somehow more annoying.


I also never said that Ukraine should bend over for Russia. I'm not a pacifist. I agree with influential strategists who suggested arming and training Ukraine with purely defensive weapons (MANPADS, etc.) while offering written guarantees the Ukraine would never join NATO.

[End]

It can't be avoided to be honest. The state controls a large part of the narrative regardless. I have been exposed to propaganda of all kinds from a young age and still do. Unless people are directly harmed most of them will forget it once diplomatic relations return to normal. It's literal 1984 mentality. If the state/gov say we are no longer at war with Eurasia then for all intents and purposes we are not and people act accordingly. Who do you actually think attends those events? Not your average person. Politics is just dirty.

You are sadly correct. Machiavelli was not wrong when he stated that Perceptions>Reality. In 1984 the Party had full-spectrum dominance over all information the "proles" had access to. If they decided that they were no longer at war with Eurasia not only were they not at war with them but rather they were never ever at war with them ever! Oh? Yesterday's newspaper said Airstrip One just conquered a major city in Eurasia? Pfff! That's wrongthink! To room 101 with you!

I'd pay close attention to what's currently going on with Elon Musk, Twitter, and Social Media in general right now. I'm sure I mentioned this possibility elsewhere but if "Social Media" suffers from an inverse economy of scale IRL than the only factor that'd permit it to grow to the state it now occupies in regards to things like Facebook and Twitter would be literally global hegemonic state actors as they'd be the only entities with the coffers to fund such black holes of wasteful expenditure and keep it up on the down low.

Except, to the state, it is no such thing. The tyrannical/satanic state wants a panopticon administered in such a way that most of their hated and "idiotic" citizens never realized was watching them (for to know you are being watched opens up potential activities the watchers would view as "sub-optimal" to say the least). I don't got the link right this minute but I'd wager mine own family jewels that some CIA fucktard has already penned a piece stating that above all else the likes of Elon Musk must not succeed in buying out Twitter and/or that breaking up the Big Tech monopolies is a direct and dire threat to "National Security" as they see it...

[xerx]

Being allied with the Soviet Union didn't prevent Soviet Union invasions.

If being a Russia's ally doesn't prevent invasion then, surely, neither does being Russia's enemy. Ukraine's drift towards NATO (becoming an 'Enhanced Opportunities Partner') didn't stop its sovereignty from being violated (and may have even accelerated it).

[Poptart]

If being a Russia's ally doesn't prevent invasion then, surely, neither does being Russia's enemy. Ukraine's drift towards NATO (becoming an 'Enhanced Opportunities Partner') didn't stop its sovereignty from being violated (and may have even accelerated it).

Maybe NATO isn’t the real problem here.

[xerx]

Maybe NATO isn’t the real problem here.

Yes, I know.

[Not A Communist Shill]

If being a Russia's ally doesn't prevent invasion then, surely, neither does being Russia's enemy. Ukraine's drift towards NATO (becoming an 'Enhanced Opportunities Partner') didn't stop its sovereignty from being violated (and may have even accelerated it).

It is Putin's Russia that has broken international law here, and is solely responsible for making itself an enemy. Allowing genocide to occur is not a good policy.

Putin has made clear that he sees all former territory of the Russian Empire as a natural part of Russia - i.e. that he would like to restore all that territory. He cannot be reasoned with by being a soft touch.

[xerx]

It is Putin's Russia that has broken international law here, and is solely responsible for making itself an enemy. Allowing genocide to occur is not a good policy.

Putin has made clear that he sees all former territory of the Russian Empire as a natural part of Russia - i.e. that he would like to restore all that territory. He cannot be reasoned with by being a soft touch.

In that case, what action would have constituted the correct touch?

[Not A Communist Shill]

In that case, what action would have constituted the correct touch?

Firstly, allowing behaviour that contravenes self-determination and human rights is not a good approach.

If I was in power, I'd ensure the safety of as many refugees as possible.

I have no idea how to win wars, especially against nuclear powers. I have little appetite for wars, but fighting Putin's Russia is certainly a just cause. Not forming a coalition against Putin because you fear getting nuked doesn't seem acceptable, especially if you fear being invaded if you don't join the coalition. We shouldn't act irrationally because we fear someone acting irrationally.

edit: since the invasion, Russia has made it clear it is not concerned with NATO expansion or denazifying Ukraine - it uses those pretexts for its real goal of restoring historically held territory. They claimed they had not invaded Ukraine, rather, that it is illegally held by the Ukrainian government. It is only concerned with NATO expansion because it is contrary to its goal of restoring the Russian empire.

[xerx]

I have no idea how to win wars, especially against nuclear powers. I have little appetite for wars, but fighting Putin's Russia is certainly a just cause. Not forming a coalition against Putin because you fear getting nuked doesn't seem acceptable, especially if you fear being invaded if you don't join the coalition. We shouldn't act irrationally because we fear someone acting irrationally.

But we were forming a coalition against Putin.

Ukraine was in the process of completing it. It was never given a path to NATO membership—its war in the Donbas (against Russian proxies) caused some NATO members to hesitate, presumably fearing a confrontation with a nuclear power. But, it was being made into an Enhanced Opportunities Partner. It was training with NATO troops. It was being armed by NATO before the war had started.

Evidently, the strategy of forming a coalition has failed. Not to put a very fine point on it, it may have even caused or accelerated the invasion—it was in Putin's interest to invade in order to preempt the completion of a coalition that was strong enough to deter him.

[Not A Communist Shill]

But we were forming a coalition against Putin.

Ukraine was in the process of completing it. It was never given a path to NATO membership—its war in the Donbas (against Russian proxies) caused some NATO members to hesitate, presumably fearing a confrontation with a nuclear power. But, it was being made into an Enhanced Opportunities Partner. It was training with NATO troops. It was being armed by NATO before the war had started.

Evidently, the strategy of forming a coalition has failed. Not to put a very fine point on it, it may have even caused or accelerated the invasion—it was in Putin's interest to invade in order to preempt the completion of a coalition that was strong enough to deter him.

Putin invaded Ukraine (again) this year because he did not think that Ukraine, nevermind much of the rest of the world, would fight back. Based on the lack of a meaningful response from other countries to counter previous Russian invasions under Putin, it may be understandable that he would think that.

I suspect that countries feared Russian use of contravention weapons plus (illegal) non-nuclear weapons and potential loss of energy supplies more than nuclear weapons. Naturally, there will be an increased fear of nuclear weapons being used with Putin's recent words.

[xerx]

Putin invaded Ukraine (again) this year because he did not think that Ukraine, nevermind much of the rest of the world, would fight back. Based on the lack of a meaningful response from other countries to counter previous Russian invasions under Putin, it may be understandable that he would think that.

I suspect that countries feared Russian use of contravention weapons plus (illegal) non-nuclear weapons and potential loss of energy supplies more than nuclear weapons. Naturally, there will be an increased fear of nuclear weapons being used with Putin's recent words.

Yeah, I agree. he may well have gambled that the rest of the world (barring the United States) wouldn't care too much about Ukraine.

It is certainly regrettable that we didn't do more to counter Putin. It is certainly the case that the threat of nuclear war is real. The threat of Russian cyber and submarine warfare (targeting freight shipping and internet cables) is also real. Western European countries had Russian factories there and import Russian fossil fuels.

Of course, I could be wrong, but I suspect that we had already countered Putin to the best of our ability. Any more would have been difficult to sell politically, not just to businesses and the defense establishment, but to ordinary voters as well—why take all that pain (and risk destruction, however small the risk) over the Crimean peninsula, an obscure and minor place that very few people had even heard of, one whose transition from Ukraine to Russia wouldn't have made a big difference in the lives of ordinary Crimeans anyway.

[xerx]

Tracking the sanctions against Russia (infographic)

https://graphics.reuters.com/UKRAINE...S/byvrjenzmve/

[Poptart]

https://www.newsweek.com/every-russi...-1700022?amp=1

[Northstar]

https://www.newsweek.com/every-russi...-1700022?amp=1

"Suicide" just like it's common in Russia to fall off a balcony. There's a weird sickness in that culture that has existed for a long time.

[VewyScawwyNawcissist]

it was hoepfully a suicide murder bc he was threatened to do or not do something that he wouldnt accept and the threat prolly implied something nasty would be done to his family. he chose the lesser evil
this is why i consider suicides to be murders in reality tho. often its people who are pushed there by others ppl.

[Minde]

If you're a regime intent on attacking your neighbors, you might want to make sure your software is up to date.

"Infiltrating the railway network’s computers was relatively easy, said Yuliana Shemetovets, a spokesperson for the group who is based in New York, because the railway company is still using Windows XP, an outdated version of the software that contains many vulnerabilities."

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world...boteurs-russia

[Minde]

At the start of this, when forces were amassing at Ukraine's borders, I wondered if Putin was terminally ill. I've seen nothing so far to convince me otherwise.

I think he will try to use nuclear weapons. The if, when, and how depends a little on how much he cares what people think of him after he dies. How he frames that to himself is, of course, rather hard to know. I expect everyone possible is trying to make that seem as unappealing a choice as they can, but I'm not sure how much he actually lets himself see or hear.

I'm not sure what the first target(s) will be. Possibly he uses the smaller ones in Ukraine itself. But also possibly he goes all out at the US. Possibly also a non-NATO Western nation... What is the biggest bang for his buck, so to speak? Most of the saber rattling has been directed at Western powers. Depending on how his opponents respond (probably largely the US, as it seems like the strongest single/unified power), he probably won't get much beyond a second or third strike. I saw a historian saying something like, "Don't wonder what to do if Russia uses nuclear weapons; assume they will and act now accordingly."


(Most of this is lightly-educated guessing / intuition on my part. It's entirely possible I'm quite wrong, and I wouldn't be mad about it, tbh.)

[Adam Strange]

https://twitter.com/i/status/1519062178925621249

[End]

At the start of this, when forces were amassing at Ukraine's borders, I wondered if Putin was terminally ill. I've seen nothing so far to convince me otherwise.

I think he will try to use nuclear weapons. The if, when, and how depends a little on how much he cares what people think of him after he dies. How he frames that to himself is, of course, rather hard to know. I expect everyone possible is trying to make that seem as unappealing a choice as they can, but I'm not sure how much he actually lets himself see or hear.

I'm not sure what the first target(s) will be. Possibly he uses the smaller ones in Ukraine itself. But also possibly he goes all out at the US. Possibly also a non-NATO Western nation... What is the biggest bang for his buck, so to speak? Most of the saber rattling has been directed at Western powers. Depending on how his opponents respond (probably largely the US, as it seems like the strongest single/unified power), he probably won't get much beyond a second or third strike. I saw a historian saying something like, "Don't wonder what to do if Russia uses nuclear weapons; assume they will and act now accordingly."


(Most of this is lightly-educated guessing / intuition on my part. It's entirely possible I'm quite wrong, and I wouldn't be mad about it, tbh.)

He won't use "Strategic" nukes but "Tactical" ones are quite on the table. Namely because the former are the "Big Boy" Fallout (as in the video game series) tier and Tac nukes are, well, a mere condensation/equivalent of several tons of conventional ordinance. That is, if they get used, they got used because they were a cheaper way of doing the exact same thing you can get done with basic bitch carpet bombing a specific geographical area.

After all, literally the entire friggin' world is essentially sanctioning Russia economically and all the use of a Tac nuke would do is, well, justify what they're already being subjected to. When you're already getting fucked from all sides at 95.5 percent capacity, well, what's another .2 or so percent at max on top of that going to matter Ceterus Paribus? Especially if the "gamble" is favorable (e.g. if you have the option to literally delete a battalion of enemy combined armed forces or two with next to no real repercussions to likely matter between the instant you do that and the enemy's unconditional surrender)...

Such is the thinking process of those who value or in any primary respect (I.e. Gammas and Betas). Putin is an LSI with damn near dictatorial power by most people's takes I gather so...

https://twitter.com/i/status/1519062178925621249

I suppose that's a meme in support of Ukraine but the raw visuals and audio aren't exactly side specific in the long term. Yeah NATO and all related parties are supporting Ukraine so hard the Ruskies aren't wrong in accusing them of fighting a proxy war against them.

Problem is it's rather difficult to construct a functioning Fighter Jet from fragments of Fighter Jets that rain down upon wartorn farmland and Ukraine rather needs completed and functional fighter jets to negate Russia's Air Superiority that, as I've said before, basically means they win as Ukraine is a breadbasket/flat plain. Afghanistan was/is a cave network in want of only those willing to dig some rocks and connect them all. Vietnam was/is a jungle so thick not even highly toxic and inhumane things like Agent Orange will ever make an appreciable difference. Notice the common factor of an underground and interconnected "underground" cave network negating the air superiority that it literally could not bomb out of existence aspect in both theaters.

Ukraine? Well, unless you got instant Afghanistan Mountain or Southeast Asian Jungle terrain in a bottle deployable as one would deploy a Pokémon over a 10-kilometer radius or greater you're pretty much fucked. Russia sadly has this one in the bag so long as Putin isn't dumb enough to resort to strategic level nukes. Hell, probably won't even need to use tac nukes. If he/the Russian command staff accept a full on "Snail's War" approach they already win.

What's a "snail's war" you ask? Well, let's just say that it's always better to expend "ammunition" rather than "men" if you can help it and this concept is the literal embodiment of that sentiment. Pillbox spotted? Right, we got X'k amount of expendable shells there. Carefully calibrate the artillery and fire no less than half of that at that position if necessary. Then send in the infantry. Enemy tank coulomb incoming? Good thing we mined the fuck out of that obviously open flank now wasn't it?

Oh, war crimes or moral atrocities you say? Yeah, in case it wasn't patently obvious to anyone with even a passing interest in history by the time that actually might begin to matter nobody will give an effective flying fuck... Thus why I believe that Putin and Russia will just do this. After all, there is no kill like overkill and Putin/Russia can afford to actualize that fact and the Ukrainians, no matter how valiantly they may defend their homeland, have but a fraction of the industrial and population base that Russia does.

This may be the makings of a legendary defense in depth campaign humanity will have to wait until we can fully access the stars to see again, but the ultimate victor will once more be determined by who had the capacity to get there (if not the firstest) but most certainly with so much more of the mostest that the former advantage availed them not in the ultimate end. Ask the Aztecs how their resistence against Cortez went. Or why Washington was so successful upon crossing the Delaware...

[leckysupport]

He really doesn't care about money:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-61237519

[xerx]

One thing that I've learned from the Ukraine crisis: Most people shouldn't be hostage negotiators.

[xerx]

A number of suggestions, from strategic analysts, that Russia's offensive in Donbass will deplete its forces, cause it to stall its invasion and/or retreat, and may be its last offensive.

[xerx]

https://www.economist.com/1843/2022/...ion-of-ukraine

An interesting visitor's account of Russians' attitudes towards the war. What started out with shock and disbelief has gradually morphed into support for the war. Russian social media parrots Kremlin propaganda. Only a handful of people that the author had spoken to blame Putin.

[Adam Strange]

Given the significant maintenance requirements of nuclear weapons (the U.S. spends $10M per year on each and every nuclear weapon in its arsenal, just to maintain it), and given Russia's history of systematic theft and Russia's proven track record of not maintaining even the regular army, what are the odds of Russia's nuclear arsenal working at all?

What would happen if Putin tried to use nuclear weapons and they didn't explode?

Finally, what would Putin think that the West do to the Russians, if the West knew that Russia's nuclear weapons don't work any more?

Answer: Putin might be thinking that his remaining lifetime could be measured in hours. So how eager will he be to test one of these weapons, where the world can see it?

Just to be clear, I'm not advocating that we assume the weapons won't work. Instead, I'm saying that Putin would be an idiot to test them.

https://twitter.com/TrentTelenko/sta...80151992131584

[xerx]

Given the significant maintenance requirements of nuclear weapons (the U.S. spends $10M per year on each and every nuclear weapon in its arsenal, just to maintain it), and given Russia's history of systematic theft and Russia's proven track record of not maintaining even the regular army, what are the odds of Russia's nuclear arsenal working at all?

I'd rather not find out.

[Adam Strange]

The cost to Russia of Putin's war:

https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1...135749634.html

About $1B every two days.

Since Russia gets about $1B every day for fuel sales, this war would be sustainable, if Russia could replenish its war machine simply by spending money. However, a technology embargo changes that equation entirely. Russia imports almost all of its electronics. That, and Russian troop losses are not sustainable.

[End]

The cost to Russia of Putin's war:

https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1...135749634.html

About $1B every two days.

Since Russia gets about $1B every day for fuel sales, this war would be sustainable, if Russia could replenish its war machine simply by spending money. However, a technology embargo changes that equation entirely. Russia imports almost all of its electronics. That, and Russian troop losses are not sustainable.

I've no real dog in this fight but I'll spell out a few obvious things. For one, the data on Russian troop losses is getting fed heavily through both the "Fog of War" and the fact we're (last I checked) living within what is now obviously belligerent nations in regards to Russia.

Dementia Joe and his puppet masters just sent 33 billion (most of which is direct military aid) to Ukraine. If anyone thinks the "Lend-Lease" program wasn't an act of war against the "enemy" nation you aren't all that smart. Of course I'll funnel all the weapons I got to a mercenary group I've every intention to support so long as they accomplish the job I've put before them. What job is that in this instance? Bankrupt Russia.

Afghanistan 2/3.0. That's what the PTB want Ukraine to become for Putin's Russia. Whether or not they succeed is immaterial. That's the goal. Sadly NATO/America (at least their ruling castes anyway) are perfectly willing and able to fight Russia down to the absolute last Ukranian. Possibly beyond even that, though I'm sure direct military intervention opens up possibilities the neo-liberal PTB can't stomach. After all, a full-on glassing is likely to kill their degenerate asses and there is no point in "winning" a war if all you inherit is dirt.

I think I've mentioned the Magnum Opus of Étienne de La Boétie and yeah, it applies good and hard here. We are, in the West, currently ruled by such incompetent and full-spectrum unworthy assholes. Sin makes you stupid and thankfully so as if actually competent people had their current levels of power we'd be locked into Huxley's dystopian nightmare scenario with absolutely no way of changing that...

[xerx]

Putin might be thinking that his remaining lifetime could be measured in hours.

If this war reduced Russia's population to only five people, Putin would be one of them.

[xerx]

So, are we looking at a permanent stalemate here? Even if the Russians do take heavy losses in this and future offensives, their remaining army in Ukraine would still be a giant, immovable bulk.

Putin is still making money, both now and for the foreseeable future—some European countries have even agreed to pay for gas / oil in roubles. The sanctions are impoverishing ordinary Russians, not so much the regime. Sanctions, in general, have an extremely poor track record of removing leaders and instigating revolutions, and they have even helped to cement the power of dictatorial regimes.

[Rusal]

Given the significant maintenance requirements of nuclear weapons (the U.S. spends $10M per year on each and every nuclear weapon in its arsenal, just to maintain it), and given Russia's history of systematic theft and Russia's proven track record of not maintaining even the regular army, what are the odds of Russia's nuclear arsenal working at all?

Which reminds me of that Statfor forecast for 2015-2025 and probably 2025 onwards:

RUSSIA

It is unlikely that the Russian Federation will survive in its current form. Russia’s failure to transform its energy revenue into a self-sustaining economy makes it vulnerable to price fluctuations. It has no defense against these market forces. Given the organization of the federation, with revenue flowing to Moscow before being distributed directly or via regional governments, the flow of resources will also vary dramatically. This will lead to a repeat of the Soviet Union’s experience in the 1980s and Russia’s in the 1990s, in which Moscow’s ability to support the national infrastructure declined. In this case, it will cause regions to fend for themselves by forming informal and formal autonomous entities. The economic ties binding the Russian periphery to Moscow will fray.Historically, the Russians solved such problems via the secret police — the KGB and its successor, the Federal Security Services (FSB). But just as in the 1980s, the secret police will not be able to contain the centrifugal forces pulling regions away from Moscow this decade. In this case, the FSB’s power is weakened by its leadership’s involvement in the national economy. As the economy falters, so does the FSB’s strength. Without the FSB inspiring genuine terror, the fragmentation of the Russian Federation will not be preventable.To Russia’s west, Poland, Hungary and Romania will seek to recover regions lost to the Russians at various points. They will work to bring Belarus and Ukraine into this fold. In the south, the Russians’ ability to continue controlling the North Caucasus will evaporate, and Central Asia will destabilize. In the northwest, the Karelian region will seek to rejoin Finland. In the Far East, the maritime regions more closely linked to China, Japan and the United States than to Moscow will move independently. Other areas outside of Moscow will not necessarily seek autonomy but will have it thrust upon them. This is the point: There will not be an uprising against Moscow, but Moscow’s withering ability to support and control the Russian Federation will leave a vacuum. What will exist in this vacuum will be the individual fragments of the Russian Federation.This will create the greatest crisis of the next decade. Russia is the site of a massive nuclear strike force distributed throughout the hinterlands. The decline of Moscow’s power will open the question of who controls those missiles and how their non-use can be guaranteed. This will be a major test for the United States. Washington is the only power able to address the issue, but it will not be able to seize control of the vast numbers of sites militarily and guarantee that no missile is fired in the process. The United States will either have to invent a military solution that is difficult to conceive of now, accept the threat of rogue launches, or try to create a stable and economically viable government in the regions involved to neutralize the missiles over time. It is difficult to imagine how this problem will play out. However, given our forecast on the fragmentation of Russia, it follows that this issue will have to be addressed, likely in the next decade.The issue in the first half of the decade will be how far the alliance stretching between the Baltic and Black seas will extend. Logically, it should reach Azerbaijan and the Caspian Sea. Whether it does depends on what we have forecast for the Middle East and Turkey.

Will this finally play out in the years to come? Interestingly, regardless of whether the desintegration of the Federation sounds plausible at this point, Poland does seem to be moving more decidedly in the direction stipulated in 2014 by the same forecast:

At the center of economic growth and increasing political influence will be Poland. Poland has maintained one of the most impressive growth profiles outside of Germany and Austria. In addition, though its population is likely to contract, the contraction will most probably be far less than in other European countries. As Germany undergoes wrenching shifts in economy and population, Poland will diversify its own trade relationships to emerge as the dominant power on the strategic Northern European Plain. Moreover, we expect Poland to be the leader of an anti-Russia coalition that would, significantly, include Romania during the first half of this decade. In the second half of the decade, this alliance will play a major role in reshaping the Russian borderlands and retrieving lost territories through informal and formal means. Eventually as Moscow weakens, this alliance will become the dominant influence not only in Belarus and Ukraine, but also farther east. This will further enhance Poland’s and its allies’ economic and political position.

[Adam Strange]

https://twitter.com/VoteandMask/status/1520905231013490690/photo/1