Lots of Russian oligarchs see the war is going poorly; they just want to pull back the troops and reopen for business so they can start making money again. Putin blowing up the NS2 pipeline could be his way of telling these oligarchs that he is committed to this war and that there's no going back now. — _db

This is basically the theory that Branislav Slantchev has proposed: Putin is like the commander who orders the bridge to be blown up so that his troops are not tempted to retreat.

In this case, Putin has two bridges he might have wished to burn, an international and domestic one. On the international side, his signal is that he is irrevocably committed to seeing this war through no matter what the West does. The problem with Western dependence on Russian energy sources actually goes both ways because Europe is also the largest client. While most people focus on Putin’s leverage and blackmail, the Europeans have also had substantial leverage with their threats to limit or stop their buying. One argument was always that Putin can’t really afford to lose that buyer, and so the threats to continue the war or keep the gas off were not credible. (I have made this argument as well.) Turning off the tap does not solve this credibility problem — you can always turn it back on if you are sufficiently incentivized. Blowing up the lines, however, removes this option and so you no longer have the choice. Because the lines have become inoperable for a long time (one of them, I understand, potentially permanently), the Europeans have lost the leverage that their money was giving them.

On the domestic side, this is a move designed to consolidate power. Putin must know about the substantial discontent his policies have created among the elites, and he might be worried about conspiracies against him. One driving force behind any such conspiracy is the hope that with Putin gone, relations with the West can be regularized (I would not say “normalized” or “restored” because even the most optimistic Russians must realized that this is impossible for the foreseeable future.) While the West will remain quite hostile to Russia for a long time, this does not have to mean that business relations of some sort would not be able to resume. And so, potential conspirators might be hoping that replacing Putin could salvage the business relationships with Europe (more generally too, not just in the energy sector), and they may even think that Europe’s loss as a customer is not inevitable. If Putin were merely to turn the tap off, they can simply turn it back on when he’s gone. Destroying the lines, however, means that his potential replacement would not be able to resume delivery through them no matter how much they want to. The massive rift the sabotage will cause with Europe is also going to make resumption of relations a lot harder. This decreases the incentives of potential coup plotters to remove Putin since one of the largest benefits from doing so is now gone. What’s the point of removing him if this will not change anything with respect to the economy? — Branislav Slantchev

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.

What he said to Macron was that he needed assurances that Ukraine would not be militarized. He did not get this, hence the invasion. — Manuel

Yeah, right. Putin would've cancelled the invasion that he had been planning for at least a year if only he got the right assurances at the last moment.

I do not think Europe has been wise here at all. This whole situation is because of NATO expansion - despite what some here are saying — Manuel

Despite, well, pretty much everything.

Since the Russo-Georgian war, it ought to be clear that Putin doesn't care at all about economics or business relations. Good business relations are just a possible way to blackmail others, if it comes to that. Putin is politician who isn't interested in how well the economy works: he's in the Empire rebuilding game. Wars are his policy, right from the start of his era.

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. — boethius

Then we will wake up in World where two nations have used nuclear weapons against their non-nuclear armed opponents. But the interesting question is: would we actually panic?

Some will likely panic. Go immediately for playbook response Putin (or the Russian doctrine) wants with escelate to de-escelate: immediate cessation of all military operations, an immediate cease-fire on the lines now. I think the Pope would call for it, I guess. Or people of that status.

But what if the response wouldn't be that? Ok, they used a 5 kt tactical nuke. And the war goes on... Then what? The US and the West has had a long time to think about this.

Nice way to cherry pick arguments.

Making NATO larger was a massive mistake, as was recognized by the last ambassador to the USSR, he predicted this would happen. Pardon for looking at the conflict from all sides, and not calling Putin the worse thing since Hitler in every post made here.

I think it's very easy and convenient to do this - after all, if the leader of your enemy is a lunatic with imperial ambitions, we need not bother with the actual history.

But I harbor no illusions of changing minds - and it's too late now to do anything about the past.

Wait a minute! Didn't Joe Biden talk about it a lot? You remember? The thing you didn't believe was true / was just US propaganda? — ssu

And likewisen, he takes Putin's nuclear threats seriously enough - I don't know where @Manuel gets the idea that he is the lone voice in the wilderness while everyone else remains oblivious to the danger when this is being discussed and debated at all levels, everywhere.

But I harbor no illusions of changing minds - and it's too late now to do anything about the past. — Manuel

You can't change minds by repeating for the umpteenth time these weak and tired arguments.

Watching News at 10pm on BBC1 and Ukraine is reported as having taken back, two villages near Kherson, in one of the annexed regions. How the Russians respond now will reveal how this horror will develop, I think.

And the grinding reluctance of the Biden Administration to give the weapons to Ukraine that would fold the Russian invasion in a fortnight is a part of that discussion.

f they retreated as soon as they invaded, that would convey weakness, not power. — Manuel

From the way you talk you are already aware that NATO has nothing to do with Russia's aim. If it was, and they got what they wanted by military force, it would have been a brutal show of raw strength. Only if their actual aim was Ukraine itself would their leaving be a "retreat" and a show of weakness.

Not because he's less bad, but because he doesn't have the same amount of power. — Manuel

Total non sequitor.

I think the root of the debate is a profound difference in attitude toward conflict. Where there's a bully, you'll say it's the responsibility of the rest of the population to bow for the sake of peace.

The opposing view is that you have to smash the bully in the nose if you want peace.

Opposing strategies, same goal.

I think the root of the debate is a profound difference in attitude toward conflict. Where there's a bully, you'll say it's the responsibility of the rest of the population to bow for the sake of peace.

The opposing view is that you have to smash the bully in the nose if you want peace.

Opposing strategies, same goal. — frank

That's brilliant.

Now extrapolate that to a world full of bullies and explain how one bully smashing the other bully in the nose brings about peace.

Because bullies learning to talk instead of fight certainly does.

Now do you see why the record of the US matters to the debate? Your whole theory only works if one side isn't a bully themselves.

If you have a point, please make it more explicit.

Watching News at 10pm on BBC1 and Ukraine is reported as having taken back, two villages near Kherson, in one of the annexed regions. How the Russians respond now will reveal how this horror will develop, I think. — universeness

Russian warfare can look like an epic fail to observers. But the key is that where everybody else would simply quit, they can keep failing until the other side is totally exhausted even if it has been victorious. Just look at what Russian fighting looked like from summer 1941 to Stalingrad.

If you have a point, please make it more explicit. — frank

Isaac is very angry that we would forget what kind of a bully the US has been. We might forget this because it's obvious that Russia is the aggressor here, Ukraine is the victim and the US is aiding Ukraine. Isaac would be extremely angry if now the US would look good as a "white knight in shining armour" coming to help a victim. Because the US is bad. Remember all the children that died in Iraq thanks to the sanctions etc. Even if this is a thread about the war in Ukraine, that doesn't matter.

frank
Isaac is very angry that we would forget what kind of a bully the US has been. — ssu

I see.

From the way you talk you are already aware that NATO has nothing to do with Russia's aim. If it was, and they got what they wanted by military force, it would have been a brutal show of raw strength. Only if their actual aim was Ukraine itself would their leaving be a "retreat" and a show of weakness. — hypericin

To incorporate parts of Ukraine, or even the whole of it to Russia would surely prevent Ukraine from being part of NATO, that much is a truism.

I don't understand your last sentence. If you launch a major military war, of course you are going to do propaganda, that's always been the case. If China were in same situation as Russia is, or India or
any other nuclear power, if they left almost as soon as they invaded, would be an embarrassment.

I'd be interested to see cases in which this actually happens. In must be very rare.

They miscalculated badly and thought that parts of Ukraine would want to willingly go to Russia. They never did destroy Kiev, which they could have - it would go against their propaganda.

But if you're saying NATO is not a major part of the calculation, then we really are living in different worlds. Ukraine would have been in a far, far worse state if it weren't from NATO's aid, another truism.

Interesting, so what are your objections to this, considering you had previously expressed doubt that Russia sabotaged their own pipeline?

They miscalculated badly and thought that parts of Ukraine would want to willingly go to Russia. They never did destroy Kiev, which they could have - it would go against their propaganda. — Manuel

What do you mean they could have destroyed Kiev? Bomb it out of existence? And what propaganda would that go against?

As for the gap between what they thought the Russians could achieve against facts on the ground, how does one separate the rhetoric justifying the operation from the level of resistance encountered?

The Russians clearly underestimated the response. That mistake is not clearly connected to an expectation of a more favorable reception.

Like the US did in Baghdad, or NATO in Libya, bomb it to pieces. Basically, tear the country apart, as those states are today.

As for the gap between what they thought the Russians could achieve against facts on the ground, how does one separate the rhetoric justifying the operation from the level of resistance encountered? — Paine

I think this is easy. Russia presents a grossly distorted picture to the domestic population, and call the whole thing a "military operation" instead of a war. As I understand it, until very recently, most Russians did not know too well how the war was going because of the propaganda.

Outside Russia the situation is very different. As you say, they expected this to be a cake walk. They probably thought this would be a Crimea 2.0 for them, which was, all things considered, not bad for Russia.

The Russians clearly underestimated the response. That mistake is not clearly connected to an expectation of a more favorable reception. — Paine

I agree they severely underestimated the response. But if they did destroy Kiev, I assume they would have no good propaganda to justify it internally. Or maybe they suspect that if they did that, things would go even worse for them.

But the internal conditions for the Russian population and the reality on the ground can be explained.

That's changed now, ever since the so called "partial draft". Now people are waking up inside.

But if they did destroy Kiev, I assume they would have no good propaganda to justify it internally. — Manuel

I guess this is precisely what I question. Russians were cool with the Chechen wars and the tactics used in Syria. If Kiev was a smoking heap, how is that different from the other stuff?

If Kiev was a smoking heap, how is that different from the other stuff? — Paine

They called the Chechnyan "terrorists", so a large portion of Russia probably didn't care about that. Syria was a disaster from everybody, Russia included, as well as Assad. But again, I think the average Russian cares as much about Syria as does the average American or European, which is to say, sadly, not much.

They view Ukranians as belonging to the same people, same heritage, bla bla. I would suppose something similar would be the case if the US invaded Canada. It's harder to justify killing your immediate neighbors, who are similar to you, than some "foreigner" with a strange culture and a different language. All that nasty stuff comes into play in these other wars.

Sure. But the propaganda in play here is saying that Nazis have taken control of Ukraine and must be rooted out. Could get rough.

U.S. citizens did fight Canadians in 1812. We both burned down real estate on both sides.

But clever historical references aside, the Putin regime does not recognize any form of Ukrainian identity.

I guess this is precisely what I question. Russians were cool with the Chechen wars and the tactics used in Syria. If Kiev was a smoking heap, how is that different from the other stuff? — Paine

Frankly I’m surprised the “Kyiv feint” guys aren’t pushing this more. Kyiv is considered the mother city of Russian culture. So levelling it would be a no-no. This would be why the battle plan would have been to deliver such a shock encirclement that Zelensky would flee/get assassinated and a puppet regime installed. No real damage done.

I’m not sure but it seems similar to how Israelis would view Jerusalem. A bit too holy to bomb. However I’ve seen no one saying that so I need to go check.

It could also be one reason for falling back when plan A didn’t work. Unlike the fate of all the border cities and villages where bringing in the artillery was the way to liberate their Russian citizens from Nazi oppression.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kievan_Rus%27

Sure. This war has many ugly aspects, no disagreements from me here.

So, as one who promotes dialogue, how does the denial of Ukrainian identity play a part?

Doesn't one have to stop doing that to have a conversation?

I mean, as I see it, it's a question of priorities. For the people involved, I think this would mean no further escalations on either side. Any military action at all must be defensive, if any. Of course, as things are right now, this would put Ukraine at a disadvantage. Further escalation puts the whole world in serious, serious trouble, way beyond Ukraine.

Listen, I think Putin is a thug and a war criminal, but then, I think this is true of most leaders of nuclear armed countries - it comes with the job. Maybe some think he is specifically worse because of his rhetoric or his ramblings. I don't think this should distract from dialogue.

Once the military situation is more-or-less stable, meaning, no more offensives, then we can proceed to list all the concerns for all involved - which covers a lot of ground.

I think if I were Ukranian, I really wouldn't care what Putin thought of my people, I just want the war to end. Let's work on that, the rest can follow.

Each day what is shown is the opposite of this- from everybody. Russia, Ukraine, NATO, etc. And if Putin, again, however much one hates him, is not offered a way to save face, then this does not paint a good picture for the world. This is pretty serious stuff here. That's just my perspective, could be wrong in several aspects.

Listen, I think Putin is a thug and a war criminal, but then, I think this is true of most leaders of nuclear armed countries - it comes with the job. Maybe some think he is specifically worse because of his rhetoric or his ramblings. I don't think this should distract from dialogue. — Manuel

I don't understand this idea of withdrawing from dialogue. There are many people desperately trying to talk to a recluse with a special button.

He is no more of a recluse than Kim in Korea, and dialogue with Kim went OK. Putin can be talked to, I'm sure of it. The aim if The Pentagon has been, not to help Ukraine, but to weaken Russia.

If people start to think Putin cannot be talked to, because he is crazy, then this will become a self-fulfilling prophecy. It should be noted that, after several attempts, citizen evacuations were successful in cities under siege, so positive outcomes can happen, it has been shown.

He is open to talk, as he has done with Macron, or Xi and others. But not Biden, nor many others in Europe. So, we cannot blame failure to talk here solely on Putin, I think that would be dishonest.

He is open to talk — Manuel

You have opened up too many wounds to talk about this with equanimity.

I spare you from any curses.

I don't understand your last sentence. — Manuel

"Retreat" is only weakness if the aggressor did not obtain what they want. If they achieved everything, "retreat" is not even the right word.

If forcing Ukraine from NATO was truly the aim, Russia could have had that easily, early in the war or before. And if they gained that, their withdrawal would not be a "retreat", and it would not be a show of weakness, they would have gotten what they through raw force.

Only by acknowledging that NATO is not their true aim, that all of Ukraine is their goal, does Russia's withdrawal in this scenario turn into a "retreat".