Russia, US, Ukraine, and the Future

[mishkin]

Are we sure putin's nuclear bombs aren't part junk, part second-hand parts, and part fried chips?

[PointOfViewGun]

That is a fair point and gives some hope in this situation, but the Soviet union dissolved quite peacefully, partially because of various constituent republics wanting that along with a good number of Russians, and finally the Soviet powers just let go of it without a fight. And, importantly, they weren't threatening any outsiders with anything.

This time we have war crazy, self-proclaimed Peter the Great on a rampage and not having any intention of giving anything up while issuing threats left and right. So the situations are not sadly entirely comparable.

I'm not sure if I'd classify today as more dangerous as things are much more out in the open. Perhaps we have one dangerous person at the top compared to back then but we are talking about the scenario where that guy is out of the picture I'd assume. I would also guess that back then there was much more potential for dozens of dangerous guys looking to be the Putin of their times as they saw it attainable. That's out of the question today.

[Septentrionalis]

Are we sure putin's nuclear bombs aren't part junk, part second-hand parts, and part fried chips?

I find myself thinking about that time and again. But since there are so many (more than US has) at least on paper (was it 4,000 warheads?), the problem is that probably 10 % of them or much fewer is enough to elicit a response that will be catastrophic.

I'm not sure if I'd classify today as more dangerous as things are much more out in the open. Perhaps we have one dangerous person at the top compared to back then but we are talking about the scenario where that guy is out of the picture I'd assume. I would also guess that back then there was much more potential for dozens of dangerous guys looking to be the Putin of their times as they saw it attainable. That's out of the question today.

Yes, you were talking about Putin being out of the picture while I kind of drifted to the situation at hand that I have heard at least some experts describe as the greatest risk since the missile crisis and certainly greater than the Soviet collapse.

I don't know what makes you think there are fewer guys looking to be new dictator now than there were back when the Soviet union dissolved. My intuition is the opposite. Back then there was at least some kind of attempt to embrace democracy, but now I don't think there is.

[PointOfViewGun]

Yes, you were talking about Putin being out of the picture while I kind of drifted to the situation at hand that I have heard at least some experts describe as the greatest risk since the missile crisis and certainly greater than the Soviet collapse.

I don't know what makes you think there are fewer guys looking to be new dictator now than there were back when the Soviet union dissolved. My intuition is the opposite. Back then there was at least some kind of attempt to embrace democracy, but now I don't think there is.

Feasibility. Smart enough people that can rise to those levels of powers know if their path is feasible or not. It is so much more harder today to gather power compared to late 80s / early 90s. This is true for all parts of our society, not just politically or militarily.

[Septentrionalis]

Feasibility. Smart enough people that can rise to those levels of powers know if their path is feasible or not. It is so much more harder today to gather power compared to late 80s / early 90s. This is true for all parts of our society, not just politically or militarily.

Okay, thanks for elaborating on that. I don't see how that would necessarily be so, although I don't have any specific reason to doubt your judgement.

[Laser101]

In this scenario, where will the nukes go? Russia is a rational actor when it comes to its nuclear doctrine, but the same cannot be said for any hypothetical warlords, who might sell off the weapons for quick cash, or deploy them against one another to gain an advantage in the succession crisis.

I don't think that's a significant concern. Regional authorities in Russia don't have any more control over nuclear weapons systems than state governors do in the US. In both cases such matters are very tightly controlled by the central government (the same was true of the USSR; the Ukrainian, Belarussian and Kazakhstani SSRs may have had Soviet nuclear assets on their territory, but they never had the means to fire them).

Plus, the notion of Russia breaking apart doesn't make much sense. It's plausible that in a crisis some of the fringe minority republics might break off (especially in the northern Caucasus) but the bulk of Russia is dominated by ethnic Russians with little to no separatist sentiment.

As an aside, I don't think it's completely correct to say that Putin 'has been issuing threats left and right'. To my knowledge, at no point this year has Putin ever made an explicit threat to use nuclear weapons; rather, he makes oblique references from which others infer a threat. Of course, this makes perfect sense; it provides a means of deterrence by creating the impression he may do so without ever stating that he will (which would leave him open to being called on a bluff).

[antaeus]

Plus, the notion of Russia breaking apart doesn't make much sense. It's plausible that in a crisis some of the fringe minority republics might break off (especially in the northern Caucasus) but the bulk of Russia is dominated by ethnic Russians with little to no separatist sentiment.

I think the analogy being implied would be a situation as per in the immediate aftermath of WW1 prior to Soviet supremacy, or Warlord Era China. Where the risk isn't from local separatists or inter-ethnic societal breakdown, but from a number of self-interested military or corporate parties with enough localised power to establish themselves, but not enough power to become pre-eminent.

To be clear, I don't think that this is a realistic scenario, but it is certainly plausible. And separatist sentiment isn't the only way a corrupt country falls apart.

[Kyriakos]

Said in this way, it seems that we are indifferent to the sufferings of the russians and that we consider them something like rabid dogs incapable of more than fighting and rejoicing in misery.

If at least it was consistent, it wouldn't be as awful (though still a case of demonization). It's not like Russia is the only country illegally invading other countries currently, but it is the only country doing so while named Russia.

[Laser101]

I think the analogy being implied would be a situation as per in the immediate aftermath of WW1 prior to Soviet supremacy, or Warlord Era China. Where the risk isn't from local separatists or inter-ethnic societal breakdown, but from a number of self-interested military or corporate parties with enough localised power to establish themselves, but not enough power to become pre-eminent.

Neither of those examples quite fit here though. The Warlord Era happened because under the late Qing military authority had been heavily decentralised and after Yuan Shikai's abortive attempt to become Emperor there was no central government capable of controlling the regional governors, who had total control over both military and civil administration in their respective provinces. This isn't really the case in modern Russia, as governors do not have their own militaries with the notable exception of Kadyrov's fiefdom in Chechnya. In the case of the Russian Civil War, the Soviets took control of the capital but a large portion of the rest of Russia didn't accept them as legitimate. Notably, in neither of these cases did the regional heads ever make any pretenses to independence, even though they possibly could have (with the exception of the 'Greens' in the RCW or Mongolia in China, although both of these were driven by nationalistic sentiments).

To be clear, I don't think that this is a realistic scenario, but it is certainly plausible. And separatist sentiment isn't the only way a corrupt country falls apart.

It kind of is in the modern era though? Most cases of countries breaking apart in the past century and a half have been along identity-based (usually ethnic) lines.

To put it another way, the constituent entities of the USSR or Yugoslavia were distinct national units. Most of the federal subjects of Russia (except for some of the republics) are not.

[antaeus]

It kind of is in the modern era though? Most cases of countries breaking apart in the past century and a half have been along identity-based (usually ethnic) lines.
To put it another way, the constituent entities of the USSR or Yugoslavia were distinct national units. Most of the federal subjects of Russia (except for some of the republics) are not.

I appreciate the point, but for something to be plausible, it doesn't have to have happened before. In this case, countries have fragmented through corruption along other-than-ethnic lines before. I agree it is unlikely. But unlikely is always that until it occurs, and in this situation where there would be the possibility of a localised sociopath with a nuclear blackmail option (even without the ability to use them, they provide leverage of all different kinds), it is worth gaming out the unlikely.

[Cyclops]

Just to be clear, I favour a strong economically healthy Russia. I dunno if this is true but my headcanon is when Putin took over Russia was recovering from a period when its chief export was young women and subsequently (and presumably in part because of his regime) they achieved a degree of shared wealth and development.

It's extremely bad for the international system that Russia is justifying the US utterly shutting them out like this. Its a stupid stupid stupid war, and positioning Russia as the chad bear playing chicken "I won't stop, you have to give up, I'm not blinking" and crashing Russia into tree after tree is bad for Russians and bad for everyone really. Strong opposition keeps superpowers honest, but Russia seems to have shot its bolt and that's a whole slice of world opinion Biden and the next few presidents can gleefully ignore.

Putin has made Russia look like the Black Knight from Holy Grail. Lost his VDV, lost his Moskva, still standing somehow but how much longer?

[Vanoi]

https://edition.cnn.com/2022/12/13/p...system-ukraine

The Biden administration is finalizing plans to send the Patriot missile defense system to Ukraine that could be announced as soon as this week, according to two US officials and a senior administration official.

Unless the US or NATO have been secretly training Ukrainians, any Patriot missile batteries sent to Ukraine right now would be manned more then likely by US troops or NATO troops.

This is pretty unprecedented. Will the Patriot missile system only be used to defend Ukraine from drones/missiles or even Russians aircraft?

[PointOfViewGun]

I would assume they'd put them around Kyiv, Lviv and Odessa to give the Ukrainians some breathing space while avoiding close contact with the Russians.

[antaeus]

If true, it wouldn't include US troops. It would likely be announced for 2024 or such like. A long term solution.

Either way, Patriot isn't a magic bullet. There's just more production capacity available in the long term to the west than former soviet systems.

[Vanoi]

If true, it wouldn't include US troops. It would likely be announced for 2024 or such like. A long term solution.

The article doesn't indicate whenever it's short term or long term. Considering the Ukrainians are in need of better missile defenses now, I don't see the advantage of sending it to them later when it's not needed or too late.

Reading the article further, it does say the US would plan on training Ukrainians in Germany on how to use the Patriot missile system. That however would take months. So either the US is sending the Patriot right now or it will be up and running in Ukraine within a few months at the latest. It's definitely not looking like 2024.

Either way, Patriot isn't a magic bullet. There's just more production capacity available in the long term to the west than former soviet systems.

Magic bullet no, but it's not supposed to be. It's meant to bolster the current air defenses. Magic bullets in Ukraine's case would be longer range weapons.

[Mithradates]

Pentagon concerned Bout could return to arms trafficking after Griner exchange

Oh no. What a surprise. Totally unexpected.

-
Burning through ammo, Russia using 40-year-old rounds, U.S. official says

"We assess that at the rate of fire that Russia has been using its artillery and rocket ammunition in terms of what we would call fully serviceable artillery and rocket ammunition. They could probably do that until early 2023,"

If Ukraine survives the winter (easy) this war will be over next year.

[Cyclops]

The US has plotted the path of the current war pretty closely to my (pretty ignorant) reading.

Every time some issue has presented, there's been a delay for the enormity of Russian crimes to sink in and then an effective response. The decapitation attack (then the well-coordinated defense punched it back), the concern over Russian air superiority (then the disappearance of the Russian air force), the blockade (then the sinking of the Moskva), the Russian mobilisation and Soviet arsenal (and the Ukrainian mobilisation and armament by neighbours), the fall of Kherson (then the recovery of Kherson). Now the missile barrage, followed by the introduction of PATRIOT.

I'm not saying its Wag the Dog, but the US has prepared Ukraine for this conflict well and if they're rolling out PATRIOT it's not a decision that was made five minutes ago. The idea the US would blunder by sending troops in seems unlikely at this late stage, the response has been well judged so far.

[PointOfViewGun]

I'm not sure the Patriot would be a cost effective measure for Ukraine. The funds for it could acquire other defense systems in larger quantities.

[antaeus]

I'm not sure the Patriot would be a cost effective measure for Ukraine. The funds for it could acquire other defense systems in larger quantities.

I agree, it's a terrible choice from a cash perspective - particularly given the cost of the systems it would be shooting down. But I imagine at this point, cost is irrelevant, at least until 2024. It's about being able to reliably supply parts, missiles etc ongoing. Ukraine's S300s are going to run dry sooner or later and there aren't many other long range/long term options on the table that the US can support through production.

Its one of those things like tanks, fighter aircraft, where the options aren't going to get cheaper over time - and they take time to become available. But Ukraine really does need a long term supply pipeline in place. There does need to be thought into what is supplied in late 2023/2024 now, so that training and manufacturing can be planned.

[Laser101]

Magic bullet no, but it's not supposed to be. It's meant to bolster the current air defenses. Magic bullets in Ukraine's case would be longer range weapons.

I don't think the US wants to provide those though. For rather obvious reasons, the US doesn't want to create a situation where American weapons are fired on the Russian heartland. Bear in mind that e.g. in the Vietnam War the Soviets never provided the NVA with the means to attack American territory.