But before anything can be done - anyone who disagrees with the sanctioned global agenda is cancelled. Once the heretics are silenced - the work will commence - Promise!

This is all of course a vulgar exaggeration and its author should be immediately dismissed as denier of climate change, most likely a Trump and or Putin supporter and very probably racist, misogynist, homo and trans-phobic. — yebiga

Are you implying fossil fuel lobbies are just wise ol' heretics suffering the gravest of political persecutions for their views?

I fail to follow where you're going with this passage.

Yep. It should be no contest. But then Russian incompetence, as all the credible analysis says… — apokrisis

That you honestly believe ex-US officers, in this case not even a ex-general!, working for "think tanks" is for sure not feeding you bullshit and represent an agenda, is worrisome.

Joel Rayburn, a retired Army colonel and former U.S. special envoy for Syria, who is now a fellow at New America, a think tank in Washington, D.C. — Is the Russian military a paper tiger, New Yorker

You really want to compare this guy to Michael Kofman.

Who, if you watch the interview I posted, mentions there was a lot of capabilities said to be missing, that the Russians did use successfully at the start of the war, but it was not reported at the time.

Of course, some operations were successful and some not successful, as you'd expect in any major war.

But on the subject of experts, he's another interesting interview:



But I'm going to guess not as "credible" in your book because he disagrees with some of your points?

I really enjoy your analysis.

Our Western political leaders are in the habit of elevating one foreign leader after another as the latest reincarnation of Hitler. In just the last 2 decades we've had five of these Doctor Evil types: Saddam, Gaddafi, Kim Jong-un, Trump and now Putin. Popular Western Culture can accept criticism of its imperial colonial past but is not so comfortable discussing and arguably blind to its current geo-political excesses. — yebiga

Bringing up the repetitive nature of these little sagas: always a new Hitler, always some sort of existential threat (if not physically some vague "way of life"), and violence always being the answer (and to question the use of violence ... is somehow actually pro-violence), spot on.

However, I would disagree on one point:

You can't because from a purely ecological lens the extinction of humans is a boon. And in that case the sooner we are all gone the better. — yebiga

As some sort of proposed definition, humans are one species among many so, as such, simply adding to biodiversity.

However, in practical terms of today, any plausible scenario where we actually go extinct is one where we bring the vast majority of the biosphere with us. "Everyone kill themselves" is not a practical political project: so how that would happen is nuclear war, extreme climate chaos, life competing AI (likely all three at once).

Most importantly, sustainability as an engineering project is fairly easy to do while helping increase global biodiversity (planting trees) and cleaning up our waste. We are not in some dilemma that solving our problems are simply impossible from a physical perspective, and we need to therefore accept unpleasant conclusions (such as it would in fact be better if we all kill ourselves).

Our problems are political, and history demonstrates political systems can change rapidly.

It’s hard to follow the logic of your reasoning. First you start with “let us say you wanted to preserve Western preeminence” as if the sake of your argument is to see how to achieve that goal more effectively than simply by supplying weapons to Ukraine, but then you conclude with “making peace with the Russians” for Europeans (to grant economic prosperity independently from the US?) and “realise its ecocidal corrupt mania” for America (namely, giving up on their hegemonic role?), neither of which ensures Western preeminence. — neomac

I think you follow the logic pretty well.

To make a long story short, "peace" is the basis of US power: you play by America's rules and you can go about your business in peace, maybe a lot of poverty, but at least peacefully. The war in Ukraine upsets this essentially "protection money" system.

European prosperity is part of this global economic system the US manages: if you play by the US's rules then you can play with Europe too. If you destroy European prosperity, the US economy is not large enough and not globally integrated enough to remotely absorb economic activity that is left hanging: they will go to China.

The EU is a massive part of the global economy and geologically positioned as essentially a cross-roads of all major parts: North America, Asia, Middle-East and Africa.

Without Europe, America is far away from everything and does not have the economic pull required to maintain preeminence, and would just become less and less relevant with things happening that the US can't do anything about.

It's when you add America and Europe together, in addition to the satellite "Western" countries in the East (mainly Japan, South Korea and Australia), that you have the economic pull to bring nations into the system by their own accord.

If you bitch slap Europe hard enough, people go elsewhere.

Sure, bitch slapping Europe feels good and is one way to express the power you have right now. But it's also the indication of deeper mental problems.

However, since I had time this morning, I also wrote a long version:

I am challenging the hypothesis that supplying arms to Ukraine is good for "the West", both Europe and even the United States; that supporting the current war is in fact counter productive to Western preeminence.

It certainly benefits short term profits and capital gains of fossil fuel and arms donors to the US administration, but I am not defining "the West" as synonymous with such an interest, and that the Ukraine war is also counter productive to US power (which there was debate about at the start of the war even in US neocon circles, that a complete schism with Russia and placing it permanently as commodity supplier to the Chinese was actually bad for the US; for there were "Imperial analysts", whatever you want to call them, that were in favour of a diplomatic solution simply on the grounds it is better for US power to maintain the status quo, that Ukraine is far away and unimportant and not worth the geopolitical headache, was essentially their view; there's lot's of specific reasons for such a conclusion, but it can be summarised as simply instability generally favours upstart movers and shakers, rather than the incumbent).

Western preeminence is not primarily based on military strength. The United States does not conquer and then integrate administratively the conquered regions into their imperial system, such as most past empires: the British and other European empires, Roman, Persian, Mongolian, Inca, etc.

For example, West Germany and Japan are not the 51st and 52nd states of the USA even after surrendering and the US being essentially in full administrative control for a time, as that is simply incompatible with US governance and culture; however, united Germany and Japan today are certainly part of the "US system", but it would an exaggeration to call them vassal states. US control over it's "allies" is not total and if, say, Japan did something the US didn't like (for example not join all the sanctions against Russia), there is essentially no option for the USA to just re-conquer Japan and administer its economic policies to its liking (even if it had the power to do so).

In other words, the situation is complicated. United States position in the world certainly does have a military component, but could not be maintained with that military power; if states generally speaking start moving away from US preferred policies and towards, say, Chinese preferred policies, there is little the US can do about it militarily. Indeed, not only can the US not implement its will on the world by force, but trying to do so is corrosive to US power.

The actual basis of US power is being a "fair and honest broker" (obviously not actually honest or fair, but fair enough) for access to the global economic system and "protection". The US system is stable if the price it extracts for this "service" is in some way justifiable for most states most of the time.

It is a classic mafioso type relationship at its heart: pay me ... let's call it a "tax" ... as the big boss of bosses, and you won't have to deal with the local street thugs that could mess with you: capiche.

The Ukraine proxy war is in fundamental contradiction to this way of "doing business".

For, before this war (started in 2014), Russia was not really "breaking any rules", but playing by the rules to access the Western economic system. The US support of Ukraine is essentially the big mafia boss suddenly deciding to support their nephews criminal career and letting them do whatever crime they want in the neighbourhood; as the big shop keeper on the street who's been paying protection money and playing by the rules imposed on them, this wasn't the deal. The deal is: play by the rules and I won't have to deal with local thugs messing with my shit.

Had the US, post 2014, come in and brokered (and enforced) a peace deal, the system would have been restored to balance. Russia loses its influence in Kiev, but gets Crimea and at least part of Donbas, symbolic recognition of Russian language in Ukraine. This would have been the US playing its role as "global don" competently: there's some local issue somewhere, better to sort it out than it potentially explode into some big mess to deal with: you will accept this piece of the pie, and you will accept this other piece of the pie.

However, there's an internal contradiction with this "peace brokering" basis of US power, which is the American military industrial complex does not want peace, but neither can it conquer the world so it's utility to US power is very much secondary to these more complicated economic and diplomatic considerations. The "diplomatic" industry, however, doesn't produce profits. The solution to the contradiction since WWII was, first, the cold war and to "top off" the profits, second, to simply wage continuous war on small countries that are not integral to the global economic system.

WIth the end of the cold war, the war on smaller powers way of making money became the only game in town, so the war on terror is invented. 20 years of profits without it really mattering all that much to the system as a whole.

It is simply not a coincidence that the months after the war on terror officially came to an end, simply exhausted it's profit making potential and there was just no one else to bomb, that this new "cold war" erupted.

But it is not a new cold war, rather this war in Ukraine is simply based on the fabrication of Russia as an enemy since it was realised the blessed war on terror will inevitably end. Essentially as soon as the writing was on the wall, Putin became the new boogey man, butt of jokes and constantly calling him a tyrant and so on. But why Russia? There's plenty of mid-level regional powers that have far worse democratic credentials. It's just lazy writing basically to concoct an enemy to focus on as soon as the war on terror no longer brings in truck loads of cash. First phase was stoking nuclear tensions, ending various treaties, new weapons programs (because they are profitable), moving missiles closer to Russia.

Long story short, a very profitable endeavour transitioning Russia the new "other" after muslims were squeezed dry.

The problem is that war profiteering, while corrosive to US power, is only compatible with it if it's against small and already fairly isolated countries that are not integral to the world economy. Russia was and is completely integral to the world economy.

The situation is more akin to a mafia don making life difficult for a casino operator in Vegas, not really for any particular reason but just emotional outburst and "because I can", fuelled by hubris, arrogance and cocaine. A mafioso can get angry with any random small pizza shop and have the pizza shop owner dragged out to the alley and killed, no reason and no one cares about it (just a mafioso doing his angry killing thing), but more powerful "businessmen" have options to defend themselves. Mess with a casino owner, even with more capacity for violence right now, and they start to think of what they can do about it. Show enough "lack of respect" and maybe he goes and starts talking to other casino owners, that what's happened to him can happen to them, and, together, if they stop paying the protection money then and stop the drug and prostitute sales in their hotels, there's nothing really the head honcho, for now, can do about it (especially if there's another organisation competing on the global scene that is more "reasonable" to deal with).

That's basically the situation, US may not "like" the Russians, but they were a good actor in America's global economic system: fuelling the NATO war machine by providing commodities and energy that could have added value transformations in Europe, that is far more profitable than the raw materials.

In other words, the US "broke the deal" to provide stability in exchange for doing business in their system: using their "laundry services" for example.

The reason is simply the arms and fossil industry profits are so massive that such interest can overwhelm the entire analytical capacity of the US intelligence community (you only get "nuance" in US strategic thinking when arms and oil interests are in some sort of competition, but if they coincide there is no other possible policy).

So, even focusing on the United States, the war in Ukraine is not beneficial to Western preeminence; however, it's unlikely the US administration could do anything to endanger a single dollar of arms and fossil profits, regardless of what US politicians think (that doesn't really matter much).

However, Europe has far more to lose from this war and also far more leverage, so they could follow their own interest and essentially force a peace. This would also be good for American Imperialism, and "Western preeminence" as understood essentially to mean US and Europe.

The problem is that, as Blinken just recently "said the quiet part out loud", blowing up the Nord Stream pipeline is a "big opportunity" ... for who? Well, for the US administration as defined as simply the sales reps of the US fossil and arms industries. There is no analytical depth further than that, and Americans would throw a hissy fit if Europe tried to lower their energy costs and a myriad of domestic political issues (and thus US fossil industry profits) through pursuing any sort of peace. American diplomats would be literally writhing on the floor screeching and screaming. However, it would be for their own good.

American cognitive abilities to manage their empire have essentially collapsed, so Europe would need to dust off the ol' Imperial boots to co-manage the Western system.

Of course, this is assuming Western preeminence is worth preserving. On this question, Europe has been leading the world in ecological policy (what gives rise to tensions with US administrative donors and therefore US administration wanting to punish Europe to express that frustration). So again, if Europe took co-management of the Western economic system and pushed it in a more ecological direction, then I think that would be overall a good thing.

If they wouldn't do that anyways, then maybe the theory that only authoritarian states can respond to existential crisis with "what needs to be done" is correct and perhaps all the authoritarians getting together in a club is better odds. I wouldn't want that to be true, letting the ecological crisis unfold over 60 years while knowing about it, the war on drugs, the war on terror, financial collapse, covid policies and then this entirely (and easily) prevented war in Ukraine, aren't exactly good advertisements for Western global management.

There's also the question of how democratic is the West really ... really as much as we like to believe? Debatable.

The rail line is extremely important to Russian logistics. Russian supplies depend on rail. — ssu

The whole point of the land bridge to Crimea was that there's not a single point of failure in logistics to Crimea that the actual bridge represented.

The Crimea bridge can also be repaired.

Perhaps more significantly, this invites retaliation against critical civilian infrastructure in Ukraine.

It's possible Russia simply lacks the capacity to destroy Ukrainian bridges of the Dnieper, for example, but if it has the capacity but has chosen not to do so, then tit-fot-tat is pretty usual justification for more violence. Basic point being Ukrainian forces in South-East Ukraine are more bridge dependent than is Russia, which is now directly connected.

What kind of actual evidence are you looking for? — neomac

Again with switching the burden of proof. The claim, mentioned many times here on this forum and for months in Western media, is that Finland and Sweden joining NATO is some major strategic blow to Russia. If people want to support this claim, they should have evidence for it.

How come you ask me for actual evidence when you content yourself to hypothesize future scenarios? — neomac

I've posted lot's of evidence in the course of this discussion to support the claims I've been making. However, if someone makes an unsupported claim then it is quite usual to ask the evidence for it.

How come you say "never say never" — neomac

Obviously because something no one expects may happen in the future, maybe Finnish politics radically changes and becomes convinced invading Russia is necessary or there is some calamity and a general free-for-all.

one line later you write "If you assume Finland will never actually invade Russia" — neomac

Because people maybe assuming that. It both may describe what people in the Kremlin and NATO for that matter actually think, but it's also simply another way to express risk.

For example: assuming this water is not poison then it may satiate my thirst. Now, if there's evidence the water is poison then what follows would be weighing the probabilities and consequences. If there's no evidence the water is poison then it is simply a true statement but nothing really to evaluate risk on; sure, it "could be poison" even if I have zero reason to believe that, but I'm assuming it's not and so I drink. Likewise, if the Kremlin is assuming that Finland in NATO doesn't change the security situation (as Finland is a stable country unlikely to invade Russia or change it's current defence policies much anyways) then it may explain that the Kremlin has taken little action over it.

"negative" press is shitty justification then: a "special operation" shouldn't have required such a mobilization, and how calling Russian general idiots or claiming — neomac

Why would Russia mobilise if press was fantastic?

and how calling Russian general idiots or claiming "Moscow should consider the use of low-intensity nuclear weapons in Ukraine given the recent setbacks it has suffered on the battlefield", can justify throwing in there more Russian soldiers in the battlefield is hardly understandable. — neomac

Obviously they are doing so and obviously they are justifying doing so due to the recent setbacks resulting in bad press people can see.

I'm describing a factual chain of events.

OK then take your time to quantify the "likelihood" of all your ifs in your previous couple of comments. — neomac

Again, the burden of proof is on people, here and elsewhere, claiming that these recent Ukrainian offensives resulting in positive press coverage in the West and usually focusing on the key word "humiliation" to describe Russia, is something that matters.

When a claim is made without supporting evidence, outlining the alternatives is a good way to try to either solicit the evidence (why they think their proposal is more likely) or then highlight that the proposal has no supporting evidence at all.

Furthermore, in these sorts of events it does not follow that we can assume each possibility is equally likely. When it comes to nation states, they are fairly resilient to collapse (actually rarely happens) and do not have a tendency to spontaneously collapse, in particular due to bad foreign press. So there's a fairly high burden of proof if you want to argue that things are different than usual, and bad Western press and social media really may bring down the Russian state somehow.

So, what I find likely is that the negative press at the moment does not matter much, the war is not waged on social media, and if the Ukrainian offensive is not sustainable then successful Russian offensives later will once again swing the mood-pendulum in another direction. Of course, the war maybe far from over even then.

All right. Now that the toy is broken, what would be the best course of action by the West according to your possible future scenarios? What is their likelihood? What are your actual evidences to support them? — neomac

For myself, I cafe little for nation states, my view of nationalism is that it is an ersatz sense of identity for the lost and bewildered, frightened and alone.

Indeed, the bigger the country one feels apart of the more lonely you can be as the larger a void can be filled.

However, let us say you wanted to preserve Western preeminence, which is what I understand your "what would be the best course of action by the West":

A few basic facts are required to understand first.

To start, the entire premise that buying Russian gas is financing "Russia's war machine" is a simplistic view of things. The foundational assumption of "liberalism" is that economic exchange reduces the reasons for and intensity of war; and assumption that seems to have been demonstrated in the war being intimately connected to the Nord Stream pipelines, and severe sanctions causing a complete diplomatic schism leading to global economic schism.

So, in starting to wage economic war (reason to prevent Germany from approving Nord Stream 2 being US can sell EU gas now with fracking and LNG), rebuking economic exchange as a foundation of peace (at least between the major nations that can defend their interests to some extent in the system), we are in fact witnessing, I would argue, the cannibalisation of the values and premises the Western way of doing things is based on.

Russia has options: it can sell to China. However, it is the West that talked itself into a rhetorical corner by making parallels to WWII and a "fight on the beaches and so on" and "never surrender" in that it's simply not remotely that kind of conflict ideologically, politically, economically or militarily.

In military terms, we can't go and "defeat the Hitler/Putin" even if the entire West thought it was justified due to nuclear weapons, and Russia is not actually presenting any serious risk of invading "the West" anyways and whatever Russians believe on average or Putin represents it is not some ideology that like Naziism that challenges our own mental comforts in the West.

Economically, Russian commodities being sold to Europe is called "added value" being created in Europe, where you want to be in the value chain and essentially guaranteeing European economic dominance over Russia. Again, the US has some donors that gain short term by destroying European prosperity both in terms of war profiteering and capital gains but also in severely undermining European policies that are less destructive / profitable.

Which is the key thing to understand, that "the West" is not some monolithic entity, and US and European interests can differ and this way of ensuring US dominance in Europe is a bad thing for the whole Western enterprise. There are different political structures with different interests.

So, what should the US do? Realise its ecocidal corrupt mania is destroying the planet and placing us all in danger, including Ukrainians (far more than Russia currently is; it's unclear to me why a project that has the known consequences of potentially destroying civilisation as a whole gets a "free pass" on the genocidal mania spectrum).

What should Europe do? Ukraine of course can fight the Russians if they want, it is Ukrainian business at the end of the day. There is simply zero European interest served by pouring arms into the situation, or letting arms traverse European territory, nor any European interest served by creating this schism and antagonism with Russia.

European policies should be the same as with respect to US bombing some random place: nobody cares.

Of course, morally, neither the US nor Russia "should" extort smaller countries by force, but they both do, and after decades of the US justifying everything it does as "in our national interest! National security!" it's not suddenly a change of heart and on some purely altruistic mission in supplying arms to Ukraine.

The Churchillian propaganda overwhelmed European political discourse, but it was not in European interest to simply believe on face value. It "sounds good" to "standup to a bully" ... but if you aren't actually about to go standup to the bully and put troops in Ukraine and match your rhetoric with actions, then it is propaganda having those unintended consequences that you mention.

Now, that does not mean abandon Ukrainians (even though I think that's entirely morally acceptable: you get yourself into a war ... defending your "agency", well, go ahead and use that agency to get yourself our, go "win the war"; I do not see how it's my business as a non-Ukrainian and where I live having no interest in a war with Russia: and, to be clear, "support" without the "fighting with" part is not an alliance, the West is not "allied" with Ukraine, why Zelensky had to say "de facto" alliance in making a "rapid application" to NATO only to then be immediately humiliated by a "yeah, no" with love, from NATO).

Even if morally acceptable to stop sending arms and support to Ukraine (there is no moral principle that obliges arms shipments, and it's a truly tours-de-force of US propaganda, in service of the arms industry, to make that now some sort of moral imperative), it is not necessarily politically expedient.

What would be politically expedient is making peace with the Russians by forcing a compromise. Europe has significant leverage with both Ukraine (both negative leverage in both stop arms shipments, but block and interdict arms shipments from the US, as well as positive leverage like EU membership) and of course leverage with Russia (sanctions, stop arms shipments to Ukraine and so on). It's also in the interests of actual Ukrainians compared to more total war because it plays well on Tictoc.

For any politician who is not a complete coward, peace is not so difficult to achieve. Of course, social media will bitch about it, but then life goes on.

As I stated in my last reply to you, NATO expansion in general is an issue to Russia. How could it not be? It is essentially an anti-Russian alliance. — Tzeentch

It's amazing how people can fail to grasp this basic fact.

However correct, your argument is far from being conclusive for 2 strong reasons: — neomac

I never said it was conclusive. I literally state in my argument that "never say never" there's just no actual evidence now that Finland and Sweden in NATO matters.

If you assume Finland will never actually invade Russia, host nuclear missiles, or host a NATO invasion force, then Finland in NATO is easily a net positive for the Kremlin and it just as easily plays as a security threat for Russia (thousands of kilometres of border with NATO) as it does in the West ... without actually being a threat requiring any investment to deal with than what is already there.

Things can change, but the blow to Russian national pride hurts now in this world, not in possible future world. — neomac

People do plan ahead you know. In these recent offensives there are material and troops costs to Ukraine and territory gained and large propaganda value. If the costs in material and troops are high enough, then the propaganda value is tolerable.

The "negative" press also served as justification for Russian partial mobilisation. Of course, that has a political cost but will have a military benefit.

We'll see how things play out. My assumption is Russia's basic plan is to see what affect the winter has on both Ukraine and the EU in terms of appetite for more war; the severity of the winter will also be a major factor.

Propaganda is not for free, it has its material and human costs and its unintended consequences. So I wouldn’t bet much on Russian masterminding Western propaganda at this scale of confrontation on a world stage. — neomac

What's with this obsession with any explanation of Russia actions other than "irrational" means the idea is some mastermind genius level ploy.

And if your only argument is propaganda has unintended propaganda ... all we hear from Ukraine is propaganda, what they want us to see, only negative things about Russia and very little transparency about their own losses, logistics problems, capability limitations, and so on.

You don't need to be a "mastermind" to know that when your opponent is running their mouth and talking shit and making promises they can't keep, that if you know the situation will reveres itself that there's no reason to talk back. It is even more embarrassing later for the party talking shite, and a confidence builder to your own crew to just say nothing, if of course things do indeed reverse later.

Honestly, I feel a lot of people say they've gone to basic "school of the street", but that sort of scholarship often seems to be lacking in these kinds of conversations.

The more Russians are mobilized to the war or flee from Russia and sactions+economic recession bite, the more Putin’s last word risks to fade away (inside and outside his circle), if military performance on the battle field proves to be as poor as it was so far. — neomac

Sure, we'll see what happens. A lot of people who leave in a panic return, a lot of people keep working at a distance, and a lot of services can be done at distance nowadays.

I'm honestly not convinced about these economic factors being all that significant. Russia state gets most of its revenue from fossil fuels, not taxing a tech based economic base.

Your speculation has some merits, — neomac

It's not speculation, it's literally what was happening during the summer as Russia took key towns and made gains, even Western media was forced to describe this as "winning".

Now Ukraine has taken ground, it's euphoric Ukraine is "winning", but if the tides turn again, may take time, but reluctantly Western media can't deny facts on the ground indefinitely.

but in so far as it’s a broad and one-sided prospect of possible future scenarios not only it has little chance to weigh in the decision process of Western governments, but it should not weigh even in the decision process of ordinary people, precisely because the lesson for anti-Western forces (Russian and beyond) would be that broadly assessed possible future threats (no matter how likely) would be enough to persuade Western general public to recoil and question their governments’ decisions. — neomac

I'm not sure what you thought I was arguing, but my point was simply that all the negative press today can turn positive tomorrow if gains start to reverse. That a lot hinges on whether recent Ukrainian gains are sustainable or not. If Ukrainians gains aren't sustainable then they burn out, the front stabilises as a consequence.

As a general principle, however, definitely decisions should be based on what's likely to happen in the future. I fail to understand how that wouldn't apply here. I drink water because it's likely to keep me alive (in the future), and I avoid falling off high structures as it's likely to get me killed (in the future), even putting aside exceptions, the basic decision making process is what's likely to happen in the future.

Putin and China are questioning the West-backed world order. The West must respond to that threat with determination. That’s why Putin unilateral aggression must fail in a way however that is instrumental to the West-backed world order. If this war is not just between Russia and Ukraine, then it’s not even just between the US and Russia, it’s between whoever wants to weigh in in establishing the new world order, either by backing the US or by backing Russia. — neomac

We agree that with the premise that Putin and China are questioning the West-backed world order.

However, it is of course up to debate what the West "must do".

In my view, the US / NATO actions (even if Russia retreats) are already a disaster for their geopolitical position.

The US, and the West in general, post-WWII, were (in my opinion) a very much soft power based imperialism centred around "peace keeping".

Brokering a deal with the Russias would have maintained that soft-power privileged position and the soft-power leverage over Russia in gas revenues, and the prosperity of America's "partners".

Everything Western media points to as "bad for Russia" and "good for NATO" is extremely simplistic view of things.

Geopolitically, my view of things, is this action by Russia is rearguard action for China's rise as a economic and geopolitical equal to the US (obviously with different strengths and weaknesses), and in such a scenario having Europe as a relevant and going concern with economic ties (aka. leverage) to Russia is a major difference to the current situation.

The US, at the end of the day, is not a conquering based Empire and its military is therefore nearly by definition not the basis of US imperialism.

US power was based on maintaining the global economic framework, and fracturing the global economic system (in my view) is a blow to American power that is foolish to underestimate.

I wasn’t talking about anonymous keyboard warriors of course. I meant credible public sources. — apokrisis

So by "everyone" you actually mean "not-everyone".

The two ain’t exactly mutually exclusive. Indeed they are evidence that a kleptocracy now getting sentimental about lost imperial promise is a generally incompetent structural setting. — apokrisis

The point was that successfully invading, occupying, pacifying 20%, and defending of Ukraine is not military incompetence. Even if Russian losses were greater, that would be expected in an offensive operation.

The domestic political and geopolitical wisdom and ultimate outcome is a different matter. However, Russia has not collapsed internally, has survived sanctions, and has maintained its "friendships" so I fail to see any incompetence on those levels either.

Of course, competence does not necessitate victory. Two competent attorney's can go head-to-head or two competent football teams or two competent mountain goats, and one side still may win and the other may lose.

That is true. And it is also true that the degree of military incompetence was a surprise to these same analysts. Indeed a happy bonus from a hawkish US perspective as it created the chance to mire Russia in its own backyard Afghanistan. — apokrisis

Can you cite any of these analysts claiming Russia military is incompetent?

From what I've read, Western analysts were surprised that Russia did not employ Western shock and awe tactics and blowup Ukrainian civilian infrastructure on day one, in particular the power and communications and keep those turned off, as that's what NATO would do, nor did Russia "take the gloves off" even after it was clear Ukraine would not capitulate.



Here's an interview of Michael Kofman, a pretty respected analyst of the Russian military.

He gives a slight edge to Ukraine on the long term war prospects, but that is contingent on continued Western support (economic, arms, intelligence etc.). Likewise, basic view of the current situation is exactly the same as mine, that what matters in these recent offensives is sustainability.

Putin’s ineptitude looks to be delivering the US’s every defence policy wish. NATO expanded overnight. — apokrisis

The expansion of NATO is a "wish" in order to sell more arms for the US arms industry.

More members has both pros and cons. Being a consensus driven organisation even a few dissenting members can cause serious problems (as a tool of US foreign policy).

The fact we're discussing NATO expansion ... when Finland Sweden aren't even in NATO yet, due to Turkey using it as leverage, underscores this point.

As for what Russia clearly actually cares about, Ukraine in NATO, even Zelensky has admitted NATO told him that would never happen, but there would be a public position that the door is open ... but the private position is never.

Russian oil gone. Putinism destined to die the death of a thousand cuts. — apokrisis

Russian oil is not gone, it's going to China and India and decrease in any flows has been mostly compensated by increased in increase in price.

All they have to avoid now is nuclear escalation and the US finally wins biggly in a proxy war. — apokrisis

For sure, in terms of relative power dynamic with their main geopolitical competitor (Europe) US has won, but this may turn out to be at the cost of helping other competitors such as China, if not also Russia in the long term as well.

European economic turmoil increases Russia's regional influence, not decrease it.

But the Russian collapse is delivering more tanks and ammo to the Ukrainians in a few weeks than the west supplied in seven months. Of course the quality isn’t so great. But you know. Russian incompetence. — apokrisis

Stop for a moment to reflect on what that would mean if it was even true.

If relatively small gains on a small and least defended regions of the front have resupplied Ukraine with more ammunition and tanks than it has gotten from the West in 7 months, it would stand to reason that what Russia has on the entire front, rear area and reserves is several orders of magnitude greater and Ukraine is doomed in any sort of war of attrition.

If Western zeal and support cannot match what Russia leaves behind no relatively small areas of the front, that is a not a "good thing" for Ukraine.

What is your source for this? — Paine

Ah yes, forgot to mention plausibly independent source, so not Ukrainian or Western Intelligence.

Starts by noting:

Nobody really knows how many combatants or civilians have died, and claims of casualties by government officials — who may sometimes be exaggerating or lowballing their figures for public relations reasons — are all but impossible to verify. — At 100 Days, Russia-Ukraine War by the Numbers, VOA

Or,

The number of soldiers dying is sensitive information and shapes the story of how the war is going for both sides, Gavin Crowden, of casualty-recording organisation Every Casualty Counts, says. — War in Ukraine: Can we say how many people have died?,BBC

But independent analysis often focuses on Zelensky's own admission:

Zelenskyy said this week that 60 to 100 Ukrainian soldiers are dying in combat every day, with about 500 more wounded. — At 100 Days, Russia-Ukraine War by the Numbers, VOA

Which seems just a base line, "everyday", kind of thing, without any fierce battles happening.

At one point he mentioned 200 dying.

Per month 60 KIA per day is 1800 per month, 100 per day is 3000, and 200 KIA per day would be 6000 per month. 500 wounded per day is 15 000 wounded per month.

If this range is indicative of the 7 months of the war, places Ukrainian KIA at 12 600 to 42 000 KIA, and 105 000 wounded.

Of course, Zelensky's comment could be a lie to inflate Ukrainian KIA and casualties, but it's difficult to find a justification for that. Honestly seemed a moment of candour, perhaps regret at the loss of life and frustration with NATO (which he expresses from time to time, and Western media simply ignores).

Considering the immense artillery and air power advantage Russia has is not really in question and fairly easy to confirm, these numbers are easy to believe and it's difficult to come up with a mechanism Russian casualties would be anywhere close. And that doesn't really seem in dispute. That was even the Western narrative for months, that Russian fires 10 times more artillery shells than Ukraine.

Again, "incompetence" is the only possible basis for believing that you fire 10x more shells, conduct hundreds of bombing sorties a day / night, but not only fail to match casualties but actually suffer more.

And usually that's not really proposed. The proposed major source of Russian KIA and casualties is the Northern offensive, which I fully believe was Russias highest losses. However, during the same time Russia completely encircled and destroyed or captured the garrison of Mariupol as well as significant troops that fell back to Mariupol. Ukraine conducted a lot of harassment and ambushes, but they had no operation like encircling an entire Russian army group and its fairly standard military theory that encirclement is easily an order of magnitude higher loss than retreat.

Retreat sounds bad, but it's far better to retreat than find yourself encircled and besieged.

And if you want something "Western Media", the Washington Post report on casualties in these recent offensives if not bleak, certainly doesn't give the impression Russian's are suffering more losses in these engagements:

A clear picture of Ukraine’s losses could not be independently assessed.

Denys, sitting upright on his hospital bed, said almost every member of his 120-person unit was injured, though only two were killed.

A 25-year-old soldier being treated for shrapnel wounds said that, within his unit of 100 soldiers, seven were killed and 20 injured. Ihor, the platoon commander, said 16 of the 32 men under his command were injured and one was killed.

[...]

“We lost five people for every one they did,” said Ihor, a 30-year-old platoon commander who injured his back when the tank he was riding in crashed into a ditch.

[..]

Russian tanks emerged from newly built cement fortifications to blast infantry with large-caliber artillery, the wounded Ukrainian soldiers said. The vehicles would then shrink back beneath the concrete shelters, shielded from mortar and rocket fire.

Counter-battery radar systems automatically detected and located Ukrainians who were targeting the Russians with projectiles, unleashing a barrage of artillery fire in response.

Russian hacking tools hijacked the drones of Ukrainian operators, who saw their aircraft drift away helplessly behind enemy lines. — Wounded Ukrainian soldiers reveal steep toll of Kherson offensive - Washington Post

Also, notice that Ukraine advances are measured in square kilometres but Russian advances simply in kilometres, which obviously is a massive numerical difference in appearance.

Where the kilometres (for example to an objective) are significant is that you need to multiple your losses per kilometre by the amount of kilometres you need to go to reach all the key military objectives.

Ukraine has simply not gone all that far and the reported casualties are immense. It's of course possible that it's some kind of giant ruse, but I think that's unlikely because the reports of Hospitals filling up all the way to neighbouring countries would be difficult to fake and there's also no reason to believe advancing through artillery, missiles, rockets, mortars, mine fields, and air strikes could possibly be low-casualty for Ukraine (a successful fake casualty operation was the UK reporting high casualties in the wrong locations of German V2 strikes which would encourage more strikes wildly off target that did little damage, but these were special circumstances where Germany had little to no human intelligence on the ground and were relying on UK newspapers to correct their fire; so, does happen, but in this case seems unlikely reports of Ukrainian high casualties are part of a deceptive operation).

And, precisely because any rational analysis concludes the cost to Ukraine of trying to retake all the territory is simply unsustainable, that it must be assumed that Russia will somehow militarily, economically, politically collapse somehow in order to justify continued warfare without any realistic diplomatic position.

↪boethius Are you claiming the Russian army has been competent??? — RogueAI

As I've responded above to @apokrisis, Western media simply relaying anything "Ukrainian intelligence" says is not a basis of evaluating Russian military performance.

Russia has conquered, occupied, pacified, and defended strategically important territory for 7 months now while inflicting, by any count I've seen, several factors more casualties on Ukraine than suffering itself.

That's clearly military competence.

Large scale warfare is largely a statistical thing. In WWII tank survivability once in battle was measured in minutes and so quick were tanks destroyed that all sides downgraded the quality of their tank builds because they simply didn't last long enough for durability of most mechanical parts to matter.

Russia has definitely lost a lot of tanks, but so too Ukraine. However, we're now at a point in the war where Ukraine has lost all of its initial tank stock and is now nearing critical depletion of all the Soviet tanks NATO could scrounge up and send.

Which is why there's been a lot of talk in both the media, but more importantly Ukraine asking for tanks and US saying "no", of sending Western tanks to Ukraine. A recent US press briefing about the latest arms package, simply answers to this question about tanks that it would be so problematic to integrate Western tanks as to be counter productive.

However, my thesis from the start of the war has been Ukraine cannot mount successful offensives without armour (at the time heavy weapons were a no-no so the theory was Ukraine could "win" with only small arms and shoulder mounted missiles) has definitely proven true in these recent offensives, where Ukraine has used significant tank forces.

Of course, they're also losing tanks. If it's simply impossible to resupply those soviet tanks because they aren't being built anymore, then the war will return to slow moving fronts where Russia leverages its artillery, air power advantage and, seems now, drone advantage.

If the situation is simply Ukraine cannot possibly sustain these attacks to accomplish and hold any major strategic objective, then Russia's response of tactical retreat is a perfectly competent one.

Of course, losses still happen in a tactical retreat, just not as much as the force your tactically retreating from, which Western media and all sorts of indicators seem to say Ukraine losses are significant.

Who says that? — apokrisis

You are saying that, insofar as you've been supporting Ukraine's choices to fight while having zero diplomatic position.

More importantly, Zelensky is saying that most of the time, and recently in literally declaring he will "not negotiate" with Putin.

Everyone agree about the surprising degree of Russian incompetence, but who says that is the reason not to negotiate. — apokrisis

Everyone? You're literally debating right now the issue with 3 other interlocutors who disagree.

And, read the analysis the paper I cited (published December 2021):

Literally the first paragraph states:

A full-scale Russian invasion of unoccupied Ukraine would be by far the largest, boldest, and riskiest military operation Moscow has launched since the 1979 invasion of Afghanistan. It would be far more complex than the US wars against Iraq in 1991 or 2003. It would be a marked departure from the approaches Putin has relied on since 2015, and a major step-change in his willingness to use Russian conventional military power overtly. It would cost Russia enormous sums of money and likely many thousands of casualties and destroyed vehicles and aircraft. Even in victory, such an invasion would impose on Russian President Vladimir Putin the requirement to reconstruct Ukraine and then establish a new government and security forces there more suitable for his objectives.

So it's not a surprise Russia has suffered serious losses in such an ambitious undertaking as "Sub-COA 1c: Create a Land Bridge from Rostov to Crimea".

That is not a sign of military incompetence. The issue of whether it was politically wise, or the task is even doable are separate questions to that of military incompetence.

Looking at the anecdotal minutia is of literal analytical significance. Ukraine fronts have crumbled many times as well ... and currently Russia holds far more territory of Ukraine than vice-versa.

"Shit happens" and to evaluate any particular battle we need to know exact casualties and losses on each side. Simply taking territory is not "winning" if the costs are unsustainable, the offensives burn our and the tide turns the other way only with far less capability to defend than before the offensives.

Obviously, both sides want to both hide and deceive the other about losses.

What we can analyse is major strategic locations that we are sure both sides are equally committed to.

For example, we know Russia is committed to Kherson because it is a major city and bridge head over the Dnieper river, which is a major strategic advantage to have forcing Ukrainians to commit sizeable force to defend any offensive coming from there. To what extent there's an advantage of controlling both sides of the river I don't know, but if nothing else is a buffer Ukraine must deal with if it wants to create a bridge head of its own and retake the canal.

We know Russia is committed to the land bridge to Crimea.

And we know Russia is committed to holding Crimea itself.

Currently, only Kherson is being threatened, fighting not even at the city yet, and, notably, Russia can still lose West of the Dnieper and still maintain the canal (I assume; maybe there are complicating engineering details I haven't heard about).

So, Russia successfully accomplishing what Western analysts viewed as an ambitious plan of "Sub-COA 1c: Create a Land Bridge from Rostov to Crimea" is clearly competent military planning and execution.

In terms of air power, incompetence would be Ukraine currently having air superiority, supremacy or even comparable effectiveness (even within an order of magnitude).

Incompetence would have been a failure to even exit Crimea because Ukraine was competent and blew up the bridges and heavily defended any bridging attempts, or failed to successfully siege Mariupol, or failed to take Kherson.

If you read the analysis cited, what actual experts believed before the war was that an invasion would be costly, involving thousands KIA and significant armour and airframe losses.

Creating the comparison standard that Ukraine was some small essentially unarmed country in no way prepared for an invasion and should have fallen in a few days, is a Western media myth.

Ukraine is huge and distance itself is a significant strategic obstacle for full scale invasion, compared to a small country, and Ukraine has been fighting a war since 2014 and completed several steps of NATO partnership, arms and training and military and intelligence "advice".

Furthermore, NATO has needed to pour in billions of Euros of arms and economic aid in addition to essentially full US intelligence support (systems that are that are worth tens of billions if not hundreds of billions), simply to keep Ukraine "in the fight".

Once you pour in tens of billions of arms, intelligence and training, in addition to Ukraine being a large country with a smaller, but not tiny, population willing to fight, the Russian military performance is far from incompetent.

Of course, competence does not imply ultimate victory.

Sure, your meth dealer doesn't "want you to die" but that's not exactly the same as caring about you.

Your argument is so under water that all I can hear is the bubbling. — apokrisis

It's honestly bizarre your insistence on Russian military incompetence.

What I find most interesting about the incompetence narrative is that's it's needed to support the idea there should not be any negotiation strategy (unlike every other example provided of a smaller country fighting larger ones: most Finland and Isreal ... the list maybe small for a reason that's worth reflecting on).

However, although debating specific battles maybe fruitful, as has already pointed out deception is involved in warfare.

A better consideration for such a debate I think is simply the progress of the war to date:



Does not look to me like the advance of an incompetent military.

Nor recent losses some sort of total disaster.

Furthermore, what the Russian military has done was predicted as a "good move" before the war, which I posted citations from 6 months ago:

Zelensky is now seen as a hero the world over and quite probably in Ukraine as well. Good job Vlad!
— Olivier5

If you bother to read the context, the article predicts Russia is unlikely to undertake a full scale invasion - and if so, super limited incursions such as only in Dombas - and in that context the Russian buildup or then very limited incursions is to undermine Zelenskyy.

However, what the article gets right is:

The operation to establish a land bridge from Rostov to Crimea is likely the most attractive to Putin in this respect. It solves a real problem for him by giving him control of the Dnepr-Crimea canal ,which he badly needs to get fresh water to occupied Crimea. It would do fearful damage to the Ukrainian economy by disrupting key transportation routes from eastern Ukraine to the west. He could halt operations upon obtaining an important gain, such as seizing the canal and the area around it or after taking the strategic city of Mariupol just beyond the boundary of occupied Donbas.
— PUTIN’S MILITARY OPTIONS

Likewise, article also gets right:
Likely Ukrainian Initial Responses to Full-Scale Invasion

"The Ukrainian military will almost certainly fight against such an invasion, for which it is now preparing.19 Whatever doubts and reservations military personnel might have about their leaders or their prospects, the appearance of enemy mechanized columns driving into one’s country tends to concentrate thought and galvanize initial resistance. It collapses complexities and creates binary choices. Military officers and personnel are conditioned to choose to fight in such circumstances, and usually do, at least at first. There is no reason to think the Ukrainian military will perform differently in this case."
— PUTIN’S MILITARY OPTIONS

However, what the article gets wrong is that a full scale invasion for the purposes - not of occupation and dealing with insurgency in major cities - but for securing the land bridge and solve "a real problem", is one way to do it.

That being said, the article does go over the possibility of multiple parallel incursions, what it calls "Course of Actions subordinate to Course of Action I" (sub-COA's; COA I is the full scale invasion).

"But he might also execute several of these sub-COAs on their own to achieve independent objectives without intending to go all the way to full-scale invasion. We will consider the major sub-COAs here ordered by the likelihood we assess for each and laying out the separate objectives each might pursue beyond setting conditions for the full-scale invasion."
— PUTIN’S MILITARY OPTIONS

So, correct analysis after all, only fails to mention the Russians could choose to have so many of the parallel "sub-COA's" that it appears to be a full scale invasion, but it's not.

The reason for doing so is more-or-less presented in the article, in that Western reaction is likely to be fairly strong (at least sanction wise) and a limited incursion to test Ukrainian and Western resolve and then pulling back has a lot of drawbacks (but the article mistakingly concludes that's more likely than major incursions anyways).

As for Zelenskyy, what would major incursions cause?

"It would cause panic and crisis in Kyiv and drive Zelensky to plead for NATO help that would be unlikely to come"
— PUTIN’S MILITARY OPTIONS

Correct. — boethius

Now, you may say Zelensky did plead for NATO help and has gotten NATO help ... but this is debatable. What Zelensky was pleading for at that time was a no fly zone, which didn't come.

Rather, events seem very consistent with my drip feed hypothesis, that Ukraine gets just enough support from NATO to not lose outright but not enough to seriously threaten Russia's objectives or cause Russia to actually escalate to nuclear weapons.

Or as I usually put it:

Dude, the whole current war is precisely because NATO isn't Ukraine's friend ... or it would be in Ukraine right now shoulder to shoulder, protecting its "friend".

Saying NATO arms dealing with Ukraine is "friendship" is like saying your meth dealer dealing you meth is "friendship".

Maybe you need the meth, but big mistake thinking your meth dealer's your friend. That's how suicides happen. Public service announcement everyone. — boethius

Well Indian, Chinese, Russian, and anti-Capitalist should be happy then. The US and the Western American-led oppression of the rest of the World is on a path of self-destruction. That's why they should absolutely continue to support Ukraine to fight Russia. — neomac

This is why I say it's a "call me in 300 years" thing. How history will ultimately view this war is anyone's guess.

All I know for certain about how history ultimately cares about things, is rarely as much as the people living it at the time, wars in particular.

For myself, I empathise with the people suffering now and I would rather see people harmed in their pride by the trenchant words of compromise than be harmed in their bodies and souls.

In particular the children of Ukraine who I do not believe will grow up to care about the war, but why global society (most of all us Westerners) allowed environmental catastrophe to unfold.

The argument that this war is finally the "kick in the arse" Europe needed to transition to renewables all along, is not a good argument, it simply establishes we have been led by traitors to European citizens and all of humanity and all life all this time.

And if it was a good argument, then if Putin's actions makes such good things to happen, that would simply make Putin a good man.

Yes that was the point I was making. — neomac

Good to see we agree here.

NATO can be repurposed also defend the West from the Rest. And if NATO expansion in Sweden or Finland is not a problem, neither should have been NATO expanding in Ukraine. — neomac

There is a big difference.

First, there is basic political stability. No one would entertain the notion that some faction of the Finnish military or intelligence would "cause trouble" and actively try to start a war between Russia and NATO. Even putting aside recent history, Finland is stable and predictable whereas Ukraine is not, so having a 1000 km border with an unstable country that is apart of NATO is a recipe for trouble making.

However, there is also another big military difference in that Finland does not host any Russian naval bases, whereas Ukraine hosted one of Russia's most important ports.

There is a lot of pretty common sense reasons Russia would view Ukraine in NATO as a major threat to its security, which has no parallel with Finland. Of course, "never say never" but I seriously doubt anyone in Russia, Finland or the whole NATO seriously believes in any conflict between Finland and Russia, with or without Finland in NATO.

It doesn't need to be over to assess how poorly Russian are military performing. Even they themselves are complaining about it in their national TV. — neomac

For now. Things can change. Now, if you say this is one negative for now, then we agree.

However, there are also negatives on the Ukrainian side. The "humiliation" only exists insofar as Ukraine can sustain military gains on the battle field.

Although I would never exclude some brilliant deceptive operation, it seems pretty unanimous that Ukraine is suffering heavy losses in these offensives. If that is simply unsustainable then the offensives will burn themselves out and Russia will reverse the tide.

Also, from my observations over the years, Putin, the Kremlin and the Russian military run a very different information game (call it propaganda or public relations -- same word to me), since they know that they can't actually stop the West's propaganda (maybe learned something from Soviet times) or maybe they just have a flare for the dramatic, but whatever the reason, they often let negative speculation run wild and then simply accomplish the task or present their case much later. For example, a lot of what we've witnessed in the information battle in this war happened nearly identically in Russia's intervention in the Syrian war.

For example, weeks and weeks of ATGM's taking out Russian tanks almost verbatim reproduction in Ukraine, the West crying from roof tops of Russian incompetence, can't even take an airfield, can't even take Aleppo ... or then only with siege tactics etc. Putin, Kremlin and the Russian military did not respond to all this "embarrassment" (running to show many tanks survived, many were decoys, and I expect many were staged since video proof was needed for funding and propaganda of these groups).

So, if Russia is confident that Ukraine cannot sustain this offensive, then the greater the despair the greater the catharsis and euphoria when the tide is reversed. And such an observation is not "copium" but psychology 101 and hinges on the "if" statement. If Ukrainian gains are sustainable then the greater the despair the greater pressure to start use tactical nuclear weapons or justify some other policy shift.

Point being, simply because the US brings out general after general to say "things are fine" right up until the day "allies" are falling of US cargo planes to their death, does not mean we should expect the same from the Kremlin.

Whether by design or just his personality, Putin's way of dealing with repetitive propaganda from the West (which Russian's aren't exposed to same as us) is long, detailed and fairly exhaustive presentation of his point of view and asking any question journalists ask. I am happy to believe it is a staged performance, but it is good communication none-the-less as the West's propaganda machine doesn't get into these nuances or rebutting anything Putin says, so leaves Putin with the "last word" so to speak (only in Russia).

Globally, Russia is officially China's "friend", and whatever meaning is in that, China isn't trash talking Russian internally. Indian, Africa, and South American media has been fairly Russian sympathetic, and I definitely get a a sort of "pay back" for colonialism vibe from such sources.

Most importantly, even the Western media is forced at some point to recognise Russia is "winning" if they clearly are. This was what was happening before these offensives. Ukraine was "resisting" heroically around Kiev and the withdraw from the North was a huge victory for Ukraine and Embarrassment for Russia, war crimes rinse repeat, but after some time even the Western media had to recognise that Russia was winning, especially after Ukraine retreat from major centres like Donetsk.

Point is, embarrassment based on how things appear to be or then what Western media is saying now, doesn't have any long lasting value if thing turn out differently.

Indeed, embarrassing can actually backfires as it removes the whole "if Ukraine falls, Poland and the Baltics are next!" and "fight them there so we don't fight them here" overall justification, without which it can be hard to sustain support for the war within NATO for long. If the war has proven Russia is not a threat to NATO, then there is no actual NATO based reason (being a defensive organisation) to supply arms to Ukraine, and some members may start to take the point of view this is a regional border conflict that doesn't concern them seeing as it is evident Russia cannot take all of Ukraine, much less all of Easter Europe.

Playing devil's advocate: — neomac

A healthy exercise! for those of us who appreciate the hellscape we live in, anyhow.

- Expansion of NATO (Sweden and Finland) possibly Ukraine — neomac

Sweden has essentially zero military significance.

Finland in NATO doesn't really change anything as there's extreme low probability that Finland would house NATO nuclear missiles or be a staging ground for a NATO invasion of Russia, which is also unlikely to happen anyways.

The only military scenario where Finland in NATO is relevant is if Russia planned on invading either Finland or then NATO countries, which again is very low probability.

- End of economic cooperation between Russia-Germany (destruction of North stream) — neomac

This is arguably much worse for Germany and the EU and NATO than it is for Russia and its friends, in particular China.

So what end of economic cooperation between Russia and German harms or benefits, very much depends on your point of view.

- Militarization of Europe — neomac

Again, if there's not really a future scenario where Russia and NATO do battle in conventional means, then militarisation of Europe means nothing but wasted funds (that may lead to further European economic troubles and breakup).

- Western Russophobia & military humiliation of Russia — neomac

The Russophobia seemed at fever pitch before the war, with the whole Russia-gate thing.

As for military humiliation, the war is not over.

The Russian strategy, seems to me, is to wait until winter and see how long and how much European citizens are willing to suffer in order to support indefinite war. As Bill Gates has recently drawn attention to, the difference between a mild and severe winter is a factor of three in terms of gas requirements.

- Besides boosting American companies selling weapons and shale gas, of course. — neomac

Higher energy prices cause severe economic harms to Europe and also harm the US economy, contributing to both economic problems and domestic political instability.

The West is promising that they are "handling it," but that remains to be seen.

And, again, the extent to which there is real pain and disruption doesn't change the immense competitive advantage to the rest of the world that hasn't sanctioned Russian energy, in particular China and India.

The idea that US energy companies profiting from a war ... is somehow good for the US / NATO and bad for Russia in any geopolitical sense is foolish. It's basically making the argument that the war is good for war profiteering.

Now Biden is ready for peace and the "armageddon" argument comes in handy. — neomac

Debatable if Biden is now ready for peace. He certainly doesn't say anything along those lines.

Rather, the previous idea of trying to deter Russia's use of a nuclear weapon with a non-nuclear retaliation obviously makes no sense and is not a deterrent, so they have simply made the logical step of now threatening nuclear retaliation.

In realpolitik terms obviously the US would not retaliate against Russia with a nuclear weapon, it's simply impossible to justify.

The mention of armageddon could be just empty talk, or then it could be simply preparing to deescalate the situation. The US administration has gotten what it wants from the conflict (ending cooperation between Russia and Germany, militarisation of Europe, boosting energy profits, is very doubtful good things for NATO as a whole, but it is certainly good for Biden's donors), so "averting nuclear war" is obviously a good rational to end the conflict in one way or another if it's now simply becoming a headache to deal with.

Mainly on the hope of the sanctions than the Ukraine military defeating them in open battle. The idea of Russia's "New Afghanistan" makes this point. — ssu

As I mention in my comment, the main narrative at the very start of the war was "Russia's Afghanistan", which links up to the collapse narrative if the parallel is the collapse of the Soviet Union and the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan is linked to that. However, a longer term process.

The Russian collapse narrative and prediction as an imminent thing, was also already started as I think the citations I provide are sufficient to establish the fact.

I'm not sure if literally on day 2 people were talking that. You have to give a reference to that. — ssu

The mechanism changes, but the prediction of "collapse" was literally on day two of the invasion.

Analysis: Russia's economic defences likely to crumble over time under sanctions onslaught — Reuters

Moreover, I think Reuters clarifies themselves their meaning 4 days later:

Russian economic collapse will be hard to avoid — Reuters, February 28th, 2022

However, if you don't accept "crumble" as a synonym for "collapse", the following paper was published on the 27th of February, which we could split hairs about being within 48 hours of the invasion, or second full day, or then "pretty close" anyways.

Putin’s War in Ukraine Could Mean the Collapse of Russia
Ukraine War Presages Russia’s Inevitable Collapse - — 1945

And if you take other synonyms of "collapse" then the scope is much wider:

Putin’s Blunder
Ukraine Will Make Russia Regret This War — Foreign Affairs, February 25th, 2022

There are all sorts of headlines along these lines, with "Mistake" or some variation.

However, the main message at the time was "Russia's Afghanistan", and we debated that a lot here in the early days of the war.

Could Ukraine be Putin’s Afghanistan? — Brookings institute, February 25th, 2022

However, the point of mentioning that people were literally predicting collapse on day 2 is to emphasise just how long this collapse narrative has been going on. If we consider the first month of the war:

Invasion of Ukraine could cause societal collapse in Russia | Expert explains Putin's miscalculation — CTV news, youtube

Russia's Economic Collapse: How Sanctions & War are Crushing Putin - — TLDR News, youtube

Russia Economy Heading For Collapse — Bloomberg Markets and Finance, youtube

Russia’s Looming Economic Collapse — The Atlantic

How close is Russia to collapse? — The Spectator

Russians Fleeing As Nation Faces Economic Collapse — Forbes

This is by no means a systemic search, and these talking points usually first emerge on television which is harder to search, but this idea Russia will collapse being predicted literally from day 2 and that narrative being sustained is well supported.

Of course the mechanisms of collapse change, from economics to morale to military, but that is simply necessary when the previous predictions of collapse don't come true; if you want to keep saying Russia will collapse then you need to continuously come up with new reasons.

You also simply ignored completely pretty much the most anti-democratic move possible which is straight-up banning 11 opposition parties including the second largest party in the country:

During the weekend, President Volodymyr Zelenskyy’s government suspended 11 Ukrainian political parties citing their alleged “links with Russia”. While the majority of the suspended parties were small, and some were outright insignificant, one of them, the Opposition Platform for Life, came second in the recent elections and currently holds 44 seats in the 450-seat Ukrainian Parliament. — Why did Ukraine suspend 11 ‘pro-Russia’ parties? - Aljazeera

Opposition press is NOT banned in Ukraine. They un-liscenced three TV channels from broadcasting but didn't ban them. Plenty other outlets are still on, and even those 3 TVs are still operating, but just on YouTube. — Olivier5

Again, how is that freedom of the press?

Moreover:

Banned journalists, media, websites

The Ukrainian government and President Petro Poroshenko have banned journalists, media and websites.[83] The new sanctions in May 2017 targeted 1,228 people and 468 companies.[80] The decision was condemned by Reporters Without Borders, Human Rights Watch and Committee to Protect Journalists.[82][71][83] — Freedom of the press in Ukraine, Wikipedia

Which, notably, is press and journalist banning 5 years before the war, reported by a source you cited as authoritative a few posts ago.

↪boethius RSF = Reporters Sans Frontières. — Olivier5

Yes, a typo which I already corrected.

Yep. Olivier5 really takes those 6 points very seriously. Apparently they're worth sacrificing thousands of innocent lives for in a massive land war. — Isaac

Well, when you've framed things as Hitler vs. The Buddha, it might be hard point of view to introspect from.

You go to war with the points you have, not the points you wish for.

According to RSF, there's vast difference between the two countries in terms of freedom of press and violence towards journalists. — Olivier5

Ukraine is ranked 126 and Russia 148.

Ukraine has a score of 36,79 and Russia 43,42.

This is in the context that the top score, Finland, is 6,38, and the bottom Eritrea scores 84,83.

I fail to see the "vast difference" between Russia and Ukraine on this ranking.

And Reporters Without Borders being a Western organisation with head quarters in Paris, it's certainly not biased towards Russia, so stands to reason bias could easily account for a the 5-6 point difference, if not more.

Since WW2. It is forbidden in many democratic countries to spread hateful lies by way of press. — Olivier5

With. Due. Process.

And "hateful lies" is not even enough to be convicted of hate speech or slander.

Where's the proof, in a fair court, these 3 TV stations were spreading "hateful lies"? And what law was even broken.

Again, in the "name of freedom" no fundamental freedom is worth preserving in Ukraine for that fight.

Enemy operatives spreading propaganda cannot be classified as "free press". They are on a mission to disinform. — Olivier5

Was there due process that they were actually "enemy operatives" or then what is the classification "enemy operatives" based on?

Likewise, what's the definition of "enemy propaganda" other than anything the Ukrainian state doesn't like?

More to the point, since when did freedom of the press not include the freedom to propagandise?

An argument against people staying in power too long, nominating puppets to reign in their place, and changing the constitution to retain power beyond set limits. Power corrupts. — Olivier5

So you're saying Robert C. Byrd serving in the US senate over half a century (51 years) establishes US is not a democracy?

Furthermore, your argument is simply that there's flaws and corruption in the Russian democratic system ... but that's true for Ukraine and the US.

Nope. A lot of independent journalists operate there. Likewise, Ukrainian opposition has not been persecuted, and the war in Dombass has nothing to see with the mass killings in Chechnya. — Olivier5

What are you talking about?

Ukraine shuts TV channels it accuses of spreading ‘Russian disinformation’ — Financial Times

Ukraine: Zelenskiy bans three opposition TV stations — DW

Is the exact opposite of journalists being "free to operate there".

That the same guy heads the country for decades. — Olivier5

What kind of argument is this?

Merkel was Chancellor of Germany from 2005 to 2021.

Also, the whole point of introducing term limits in the US was so that someone genuinely popular with the people (due to serving average people's interest rather than elites) couldn't be in power so long as to be able to implement effective policies. It's completely anti-democratic that someone who's popular cannot stand for election.

That most opposition figures have been killed or jailed, and their parties persecuted. — Olivier5

Sure ... and that's not true for Ukraine? And, in both cases the argument will be the same that they are foreign controlled operators.

And again, isn't this the bread and butter of the CIA to get rid of political opposition, democratic or otherwise, around the world?

That all free press is banned from the country. — Olivier5

Same as Ukraine.

That entire regions have been massacred like Chechnya. — Olivier5

Isn't the Ukrainian war on the Donbas since 2014 an exact analogous situation?

Furthermore, this has nothing to do with democracy. A people can be for war. US has massacred whole countries, literally millions dead, with democratic support.

... Indeed, I seem to remember the US having their own little internal disagreement that resulted in far more dead than in Chechnya, and that the whole American civil war thing is one of the greatest example of democracy "winning".

That one can go to jail for 15 years for criticizing the war, even if only by wearing a tshirt. — Olivier5

Again, is it more free in Ukraine?

Likewise again, if a majority of Russians are in favour of such policies, it's still democratic.

The equating "democracy" with "anything I think is good" is not a sound argument. Democratic process (to one standard of democracy or another) can result in things I think are bad ... but it's still democratic.

What criticism of Russian democracy does not also hold for Ukraine? Or for the US for that matter.

If you say some people think Russian elections are fixed ... I hate to break it to you, but some people say US elections are fixed, and that "Trump won" for example.

But, you don't even need fraudulent elections for minority rule if you have a setup like US electoral college and senate anyways.

And the whole idea of "fighting for democracy" is completely laughable when the US / NATO is allied with the likes of Saudi Arabia and various other kings, despots and tyrants.

If the West was going to "democratise the world" Russia would be far down on the list.

Of course, the first step would be changing the policy of overthrowing democratically elected governments that have policies "against US interests", and I think it's safe to say we're a long way away from that.

If people want to refer to WWII allied idealism ... then "we had elections even in a war and kept freedom of movement and freedom of speech and didn't ban opposition parties and so on (well, kept to freedom quite a bit anyways)" was a big part of that argument that the allies were fighting for democracy against tyranny.

The Nazi argument for tyranny was that it makes a more efficient war fighting machine.

So, anytime Ukrainian sympathisers excuse Ukrainian anti-freedom policies in that it's needed to fight the war, that's literally what the Nazi's said.

Ukraine is a democracy, while Russia is not. It makes a difference in my book, and obviously for Ukrainians. — Olivier5

Russia is also a democracy, and arguably a bit more democratic than Ukraine at the moment, to the extent you can argue Russia hasn't banned as much opposition parties and media.

Also, Ukraine stopped the fundamental freedom of movement of military age men essentially day 1 of the war, whereas Russia has not. "Voting with your feet" has been multi decades war cry of supporters of the status quo in the West, particularly the US, and that way of voting has been denied to a large section of Ukrainian society.

You may say "but of course the Ukrainian state doesn't want men to leave!" but that's a totalitarian argument and not a democratic one.

There is also not much controversy over the opinion that Putin is supported by a majority of Russians.

Compared to the US senate, that's a "point for democracy" in favour of Russia.

Sure, the Russian state makes use of propaganda that affects the opinions of Russians, but the idea the US state doesn't do likewise would be laughable, and the idea Ukraine isn't also propagandising its own citizens would be a total break with reality.

"Who's more democratic" between these 3 parties is not some truism you can just throw out there, and Ukraine is certainly not a contender for "exemplary democracy".

Apologists for Ukraine when it comes to their language laws, banning opposition media and major parties, purging any dissidents, banning men from leaving the country, will say that of course they need to do these things to fight Russia.

Maybe so, but the corollary is they are not fighting for democracy, but for totalitarian principles.

And "extreme nationalists" (aka. Nazi's) in Ukraine are quite coy about saying the war is good for society as it allows them to reduce "friction".

Yet Ukraine does get to have a say in what it people believe. — apokrisis

This is so bizarre.

Ukraine get's a say in what its individual citizens believe?

What's Ukraine other than just the collection of individual citizens? at least when it comes to beliefs and saying things?

And you mention freedom all the time ... isn't freedom of thought the first and most fundamental?

Yet Ukraine does get to have a say in what it people believe. — apokrisis

And the whole planet should find Putin worth stopping - but in the context of the degree to which he threatens the world order that we need to construct, rather than the degree that it protect the world order that underpinned a fossil fuel consumption based model of humanity.[/quote]

Thanks for finally confirming the obvious, that proponents of the Ukrainian war effort do not evaluate Ukrainian well being, but rather a larger "international order". That you want Ukrainians to fight for an entirely new international order, rather than protect the existing one, is definitely an interesting spin.

But if I understand you correctly, your argument is meant to solve the problem that a forever war with Russia, never compromising in order to weaken the Russian state (which I have no issue accepting it does), is obviously not in the interests of Ukrainians by simply overlooking their interest by simply saying Ukrainian state speaks for Ukrainians and says what they believe (certainly no one else is talking about Ukrainian beliefs, seen as the opposition parties and media have been banned) and the Ukrainian state wants Ukrainians to keep fighting (without ever any compromise), so that serves your objective and Ukrainian state clearly agrees to be a tool in this wider "international order" game, and so all is well.

Yet the fact is that the battlefield here is limited: Ukrainian troops will stop at the Russian border. The West can keep up such aid as it's giving now for quite a while. And now the mobilized troops can basically be formed into meaningful units for a spring offensive. Putin can likely continue the war longer than anticipated. Still, a collapse is also possible, although rather unlikely. — ssu

Yes, "collapse" has been predicted since literally day 2 of the invasion. Of course, always "possible" as you note.

Making gains at the very edges of Russian occupied territory is extremely debatable in significance.

Russia is certainly focused its defensive efforts most in the land bridge from Russia to Crimea to the Canal. Taking Kherson, as I've stated far before this new offensive started, would only be step 1, and a long way to go from there as you note.

The actual status of the military situation I think boils down to what cost for the Ukrainians have these gains come at and if such losses are sustainable.

Yet the fact is that the battlefield here is limited: Ukrainian troops will stop at the Russian border. — ssu

It should also be noted that this is an immense strategic advantage for Russia, as although Ukraine is limited in this way, Russia is not. A Russian offensive can enter Ukraine at any point along the Russian-Ukraine border, and perhaps Belarus as well.

The actual front line is the entire border, which allows tactical moves such as flanking the forces in Kharkiv by an offensive coming to their North as well as strategic moves of a salient somewhere in the North again.

Certainly human, political and material costs have been high for the Russians, which the media points out in fine detail, but what is left out of Western media is the costs to the human and material costs to the Ukrainians, and political costs to the West.

The key point will be the winter and it seems to me that the Kremlin and Russian forces has succeeded in "keeping it together" until then.

Political pressure with Russia is definitely reached a maximum (but clearly not a breaking point), but there is also the other side in that pressure is also mounting within EU countries, and winter hasn't even arrived yet.

I agree that the Russia plan is likely exactly as you say to see winter through and then launch a winter / spring offensive before the melt and testing the EU's appetite for another year of the war.

Nuclear threats remain, fortunately for now, clearly in the deterrence "utility" of downward pressure on the amount and kinds of arms to Ukraine.

It turns out there is no debate.
— frank

Yes. If you decide to ignore all counterarguments, that tends to be the outcome. — Isaac

The summary.

I think the response to Putin using nuclear weapons wouldn't be a nuclear escalation. And naturally the West is trying to make a sincere warning that it would be a bad thing to do. — ssu

I agree, the danger of larger scale nuclear is more in the cycle of retaliation continuing at some point going haywire.

"Asymmetric moves" such as blowing up the Nord Steam pipe (whoever it was) may have unintended consequences and be a lot worse than even the perpetrators thought it would, soliciting a retaliation in turn much stronger than expected.

We can agree then that Mearsheimer was correct in that Ukraine giving up it's nuclear weapons was a very bad idea: with them it could have deterred Russian imperialism. — ssu

That this is the main conclusion people are drawing from this conflict, a new cycle of nuclear proliferation has certainly already started. The actual use of nuclear weapon would simply super charge that in my opinion.

Of course, the "next Ukraine" could easily be some poor country that the US wanted to bomb.

So there is at least some skin in the game for the US as well to diffuse the situation. Of course, the net present bombing value is pretty low of nations you don't even know you hate yet, but, still, it is there, it is something.

MacArthur wanted to use nukes in Korea. Thank God he got cashiered. It must have been tempting though, at Chosin. — RogueAI

There's actually two reasons for not using nukes in Korea.

One was the political ramifications, which are obvious and more-or-less the same as today.

But the other reason was the fear that the mountainous terrain would render the nukes not so effective, and that the world would actually fear them less and not more after their use.

Same argument has been presented here that nukes wouldn't be effective.

However, apart from the situation not being the same, Ukraine being quite flat, it's also not the same situation technology wise with the kinds of nukes and speed at which they could be fabricated.

US policy back in Korea days was to build 600 nukes (it was reckoned the magic number) and to then simply destroy the Soviet Union. Anything less and you have protracted war, but 600 was reasoned to be "enough" to destroy the Soviet Union as a going concern.

Of course, it's anyone's guess if the US would have gone through with it, but the soviets developing nukes put an end to that plan.

The danger today is of course escalation does go out of hand and leads to full on nuclear war.

It definitely seems now the general mood, a sort of ethereal nihilism that civilisation has wandered into and launching nukes maybe just the next tic toc meme: felt cute, might delete the planet in 20 minutes.

It is frightening, and even if low probability, something to be worried about. A small risk of nuclear war is still unacceptable morally speaking.

However, even if nukes are used and there is no escalation to nuclear exchange (which I would put my money on, and not simply because it's the scenario I can spend money), the use of a nuke usher in crazy nuclear proliferation and that would get out of hand later.

If the great powers cannot manage world affairs responsibly, everyone is going to want nukes and the great powers will also go back to having even more.

It's not a good thing to throw into the mix of climate change and resource depletion of various kinds.

I know they are more than some random dude on the internet. Even if it is opinion, I prefer it from someone with a name and credible credentials. — apokrisis

That makes absolutely zero sense on a debate forum.

Point here is to present analysis and then defend or reformulate it in light of critique and rebuttal.

Making a bold claim, then trying to switch the burden of proof is a a common fallacy.

Simply because the Western media repeats again and again bold claims without justification, does not make it the default position that any dissenters must overcome a high burden of proof to critique, just makes it propaganda.

I commented on the odd reluctance of apologists to source their talking points. I might also remark on what seems to be a tactic of confusing the discussion with non sequiturs. — apokrisis

You clearly don't understand what sources are about.

Sources are about facts, not analysis or opinion and certainly not questions to other parties to a debate.

@Isaac has already explained this to you, but I'll explain it again with some examples.

First of all, even having a source when the other side does not, doesn't "win" an argument in any case. If someone on a corner of the internet is making wild claims about a situation no one else witnessed ... by definition there would be no contradictory source.

However, is it reasonable to accept any wild claim about events no one else witnessed? Obviously not, the first followup question to a sourced claim is "well, how credible is this source."

To make a long story short, in a war there are few credible sources. Every source of information could be propaganda or part of some deceptive campaign.

Indeed, one baseline of reliability commentators like to rely on is when both Ukraine and Russia are saying the same thing, seems bullet proof, but even then we must reserve skepticism as one side maybe simply saying what the other side wants to believe for the purpose of deception.

And pointing out that pretty much anything could be deceptive is not "apologetics" it's simply obvious.

Which is why the narrative of Russian incompetence is so essential to Western propaganda, as the only way to take everything Ukrainian Intelligence says, retired US generals, and the Western media at face value with zero criticism, or followup questions is to first believe Russia is irrational (as even taking the Western narrative at face value is replete with contradictions that are only resolvable if Putin, the Kremlin and the Russian military are irrational actors).

Or, as @Tzeentch has accurately described:

A lot of claims, but what verifiable data are they based on?

The nature of war is messy - Clausewitz called it friction. In giant operations like these things go wrong, and they go wrong all the time. Logistical congestion is the norm rather than the exception - in a situation where both sides are trying to kill and hamper each other there is never enough ammunition, fuel, troops, fire support, etc. You can't predict an enemy whose primary concern is to be unpredictable, etc. — Tzeentch

In other words, there is very little reliable information about any statistically relevant information. Pointing out some anecdotes of failure, morale problems, mistakes, logistical problem, etc. doesn't establish as much or more of the same problems on the Ukrainian side.

All that is established is that "shit happens".

Any honest analysis progresses in several stages, first considering the "undisputed facts" that all parties to the discussion do actually agree on and what to make of them.

For example, undisputed facts are:

1. Russia currently occupies nearly 20% of Ukraine and has successfully pacified these regions.
2. Russia has secured what Western analysts before the war pointed out would be a big strategic victory of creating a land bridge to Crimea and securing the water supply to Crimea.
3. Russian lines are not currently "in collapse" due to morale, logistics, mutiny, etc. as is claimed essentially everyday on my news feeds.
4. Ukraine recently launched a major offensive that recaptured area in the least relevant strategic location, that is now making very slow progress, while Russia also makes progress in other areas of the front.

So, whatever the "absolute competence" of the Russian military it is not so great to have lost all of their land gains since the start of the war, nor lose the strategically vital land-bridge to Crimea canal and Kherson. Indeed, this strategic heart of the whole operation is not currently even under threat.

There is also no reason that all your arguments that the Russian military is not a good meritocracy etc. do not also apply to Ukraine, or the US for that matter. Certainly the US has a lot more technology and equipment and bases around the world and spends much more money than Russia, doesn't make them more competent and less financially wasteful and corrupt ... and ... the war is actually with Ukraine and not the US.

Ukraine was actually ranked as more corrupt than Russia by some metrics before the war. Why wouldn't your analysis not also apply to Ukraine? Not to speak of all the authoritarians of one flavour or another throughout history that fought successful wars, and there being zero evidence that democracy, even "true democracy" without reproach or blemish, is some sort of magical super weapon on the battlefield.

Because I cannot take you seriously.
— apokrisis

What an odd response to being asked what data one's views are based on.

I guess I'd be pretty reluctant to share my sources too, if all I had were newspaper articles and confirmation bias. — Tzeentch

Whether or not the various alternative narratives here have been sourced is easily checked,
— Isaac

I have indeed googled to see where your talking points might be sourced. Strangely nothing respectable is turning up. So I can only continue to say either pony up or expect to be treated dismissively. — apokrisis

You think the idea of sourcing things is a talking point?

Russia isn't going to use nuclear weapons. They already hold enough territory to claim victory and there is very little chance of Ukraine mounting the types of offensives that would allow them to retake it, especially after the mobilization. — Tzeentch

I agree this is likely.

All of this nuclear fear-mongering is based on the assumption that Russia is losing and Putin is desperate. I don't think this is the case at all. Considering the amount of troops they have had deployed it's plausible that their initial war goals have already been reached. — Tzeentch

The nuclear fear-mongering has a lot of different reasons.

Even if Putin believes he can't "lose" at this point, he'd still want to deter more weapons shipments to Ukraine.

Even if the US believes Ukraine has already "lost", it would still want to keep sending weapons to Ukraine so that they don't lose even harder or to simply bleed Russia and increase the cost of their victory. Of course, the US would not want Russia to change the dynamic by using nuclear weapons, so would want to deter Russia from crossing that line by presenting escalation pathways, nuclear or then conventional (but then may turn nuclear later if the escalation continues).

The logic right now is that the US is trying to convince Russia it will respond conventionally an impose a cost higher than whatever is gained by the use of nukes in Ukraine. Of course, just as it's not rational for US to nuke Russia for nuking Ukraine, it would not be rational for Russia to nuke the US for a non-nuclear retaliation.

Next step is of course Russia trying to convince the US that Russia's non-nuclear and entirely rational retaliation for a non-nuclear US retaliation wouldn't be worth it for the US.

Of course, in that process of threatening non-nuclear retaliations, at some point one party tries to convince the other "well, ha, if you did that then I would use nuclear weapons, so there, checkmate".

For example, US policy is to view even conventional attack on its carriers as a nuclear attack on US soil. Now, how not-A is viewed as literally A is anyone's ontological guess, but nevertheless that is the stated policy. If you believe the US would carry through on that policy, then you are less likely to attack a carrier (as a state actor at least).

So, even if both parties are still far from any circumstance in which nuclear weapons are likely to be used ... it is still rational to deter the other's current policies with said nuclear weapons.

Then there's also just political rhetoric of the blame game for the home audience as well as setting up the threat of nuclear war as the reason for a resolution of some sort (which does not seem likely but maybe plays a roll if people believe resolution needs to happen at some point).

Don't undersell their commitment to historical restorations, they're now using T-62s and T-64s, they're using 60-70 year old tank designs. — Count Timothy von Icarus

Again, this matters little if Ukraine has does not have better tanks in the situation.

The reason Ukraine is now asking for Western tanks maybe because it is running out of Soviet tanks.

However, Western tanks may not be a practical solution for a lot of reasons.