Putin: Enemy of ....

[dismalist]

I do see that, as well, of course.

But things could have also been different, that's all.

M.

We agree.

[quasihumanist]

Well, actually, there was a program, but it was derailed by greed. It died a-borning.

There was a program.  It was at least an order of magnitude too small.

[Stockmann]

Russia is not going away and it will not stay militarily weak.

I'm not sure about the latter. The cost of replacing Russian stuff that's been used up or destroyed must be at least in the hundreds of billions of dollars (esp. considering Russian inefficiency and corruption), and the sanctions have apparently crippled Russia's ability to build tanks or warships - Russia had a Brazilian-style economy prior to sanctions; add a shrinking, aging population (less canon fodder, less money) and that the world will continue to move away from hydrocarbons, and Russia's prospects of recovery don't look good.
I think this is a pretty major military realignment - not just Russia looking weak for all the world to see, but also showcasing that, militarily, Turkey and Poland matter more in Eastern Europe than Germany and France.

Well, actually, there was a program, but it was derailed by greed. It died a-borning.

There was a program.  It was at least an order of magnitude too small.

If it had worked, China would be almost surrounded by prosperous, allied democracies.

[dismalist]

Up-thread I lamented that we did not have a policy toward Russia. Well, we have one now: Russia is to be weakened!

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/apr/25/russia-weakedend-lloyd-austin-ukraine

Please be cognizant of Charlie XII, Napoleon Bonaparte, and Adolf Hitler. It's OK, though, if your name is Genghis Khan.

This may even be a good idea. I just hope everybody understands that the stakes in this game with uncertain outcome just went up.

[Stockmann]

Please be cognizant of Charlie XII, Napoleon Bonaparte, and Adolf Hitler. It's OK, though, if your name is Genghis Khan.

You forget the Kaiser - in WWI, Russia was defeated by a country that was itself defeated - as well as the Japanese in 1905 and, of course, Afghanistan. Above, all, the Cold War.
However, I don't think there is much precedent in Russia's history for starting a war of aggression, at a time of its choosing, and it going so badly so fast (1905 I guess is perhaps the nearest analogue). The Soviet invasion of Afghanistan (or the American invasion, for that matter) was a brilliant success in comparison. Other countries have started wars of aggression they were completely unprepared for and that were catastrophic almost from the word go, but they weren't even regional powers at the time (Paraguay starting the War of the Triple Alliance, the Khmer Rouge vs. Vietnam). Maybe Mussolini's invasion of Greece?
I think the nearest analogue in a wider context isn't anything from Russia's past, but rather Imperial Spain - and I'm thinking this could be the equivalent of 1898. Just as Spain's pathetic performance then liquidated what was left of the empire, Russia's shockingly bad performance may well finish Russia as even a regional power. Like Imperial Spain, Russian decline has been very long (pretty much going on at least since 1905, except of course for victory in WWII). Or perhaps another analogue is France, and Ukraine could be Russia's Algeria - without France's wealth, of course.

[dismalist]

Please be cognizant of Charlie XII, Napoleon Bonaparte, and Adolf Hitler. It's OK, though, if your name is Genghis Khan.

You forget the Kaiser - in WWI, Russia was defeated by a country that was itself defeated - as well as the Japanese in 1905 and, of course, Afghanistan. Above, all, the Cold War.
However, I don't think there is much precedent in Russia's history for starting a war of aggression, at a time of its choosing, and it going so badly so fast (1905 I guess is perhaps the nearest analogue). The Soviet invasion of Afghanistan (or the American invasion, for that matter) was a brilliant success in comparison. Other countries have started wars of aggression they were completely unprepared for and that were catastrophic almost from the word go, but they weren't even regional powers at the time (Paraguay starting the War of the Triple Alliance, the Khmer Rouge vs. Vietnam). Maybe Mussolini's invasion of Greece?
I think the nearest analogue in a wider context isn't anything from Russia's past, but rather Imperial Spain - and I'm thinking this could be the equivalent of 1898. Just as Spain's pathetic performance then liquidated what was left of the empire, Russia's shockingly bad performance may well finish Russia as even a regional power. Like Imperial Spain, Russian decline has been very long (pretty much going on at least since 1905, except of course for victory in WWII). Or perhaps another analogue is France, and Ukraine could be Russia's Algeria - without France's wealth, of course.

Aaah, Stockmann, good story! I like.

Let's stick to Russia for analogies for the moment. The 1905 and WW I episodes certainly count, but Russia fell from within. [Hitler counted on that happening again.] It may very well go this way this time, or it may not. What are we willing to stake on that gamble? If the palpable risk aversion on the Covid thread on this board is any indication, nobody has the appetite for a real war. Quickie, cheapy, yes, but that's what's not certain.

US policy just raised the stakes. Let us not drift into it, eyes wide open.

[nebo113]

Please be cognizant of Charlie XII, Napoleon Bonaparte, and Adolf Hitler. It's OK, though, if your name is Genghis Khan.

You forget the Kaiser - in WWI, Russia was defeated by a country that was itself defeated - as well as the Japanese in 1905 and, of course, Afghanistan. Above, all, the Cold War.
However, I don't think there is much precedent in Russia's history for starting a war of aggression, at a time of its choosing, and it going so badly so fast (1905 I guess is perhaps the nearest analogue). The Soviet invasion of Afghanistan (or the American invasion, for that matter) was a brilliant success in comparison. Other countries have started wars of aggression they were completely unprepared for and that were catastrophic almost from the word go, but they weren't even regional powers at the time (Paraguay starting the War of the Triple Alliance, the Khmer Rouge vs. Vietnam). Maybe Mussolini's invasion of Greece?
I think the nearest analogue in a wider context isn't anything from Russia's past, but rather Imperial Spain - and I'm thinking this could be the equivalent of 1898. Just as Spain's pathetic performance then liquidated what was left of the empire, Russia's shockingly bad performance may well finish Russia as even a regional power. Like Imperial Spain, Russian decline has been very long (pretty much going on at least since 1905, except of course for victory in WWII). Or perhaps another analogue is France, and Ukraine could be Russia's Algeria - without France's wealth, of course.

Aaah, Stockmann, good story! I like.

Let's stick to Russia for analogies for the moment. The 1905 and WW I episodes certainly count, but Russia fell from within. [Hitler counted on that happening again.] It may very well go this way this time, or it may not. What are we willing to stake on that gamble? If the palpable risk aversion on the Covid thread on this board is any indication, nobody has the appetite for a real war. Quickie, cheapy, yes, but that's what's not certain.

US policy just raised the stakes. Let us not drift into it, eyes wide open.

I am neither a historian nor a student of history.  I am very troubled by the possibility of direct conflict with Putin.  OTOH, I am very troubled by the possibility that Putin will move against other countries.  Stopping him in Ukraine seems to be a necessity.  I don't think we are drifting into direct conflict, however, though I am not sure I can provide logical support for that statement. 

[mamselle]

I'm not belligerent as a general rule, but if he isn't stopped somehow, soon, completely, ther will be no Ukraine left to save.

We can do better than turning this into a media talk show.

M.

[Stockmann]

Viewpoint: Putin now faces only different kinds of defeat

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-61348287

[mamselle]

Ukrainian victories are important, but stopping the whole thing is still the main necessity.

Analysis of the effects of various stratagems, important as they all are, is still only back-patting until the tanks turn around and go home and the shelling stops.

Full STOP.

M.

[dismalist]

Ukrainian victories are important, but stopping the whole thing is still the main necessity.

Analysis of the effects of various stratagems, important as they all are, is still only back-patting until the tanks turn around and go home and the shelling stops.

Full STOP.

M.

The only way of stopping this idiocy is Ukrainian victory after Ukrainian victory.

Si vis pacem, para bellum.

[mamselle]

Pax in terra choreagibus.
Ballo, non bello, parare.

M.

[dismalist]

Pax in terra choreagibus.
Ballo, non bello, parare.

M.

Having nice thoughts, even in Latin, won't do the trick.

Gotta have power, I mean the gun stuff.

[mamselle]

It was more meant as a jussive construction although it's in the infinitive.

I'm recalling Zalensky's joyful time in DWTS and praying he gets to return to that life, or something like it, soon.

I know about the regrettably necessary bullets....have I not been calling for a no-fly zone from the start?

It's useful to keep things in perspective...

M.

[dismalist]

It was more meant as a jussive construction although it's in the infinitive.

I'm recalling Zalensky's joyful time in DWTS and praying he gets to return to that life, or something like it, soon.

I know about the regrettably necessary bullets....have I not been calling for a no-fly zone from the start?

It's useful to keep things in perspective...

M.

No-fly-zones are great after your opponent has been defeated. A US imposed no-fly-zone over Ukraine would strongly, strongly risk a US cum Nato -- Russia war. Is that what anybody wants? I think not.