Trevor’s review of The Russia Trap: How Our Shadow War with Russia Could Spiral into Nuclear Catastrophe > Likes and Comments
46 likes · Like
'If the whole of Europe with massive support from the US cannot stop Russia in Ukraine'
Are you joking? The US has been backing Russia more than Ukraine for a long time now (since the election basically). The mere fact that Ukraine has held on for this long is a minor miracle and showcases Russia's warmaking ineptitude.
Russia's real genius is the lobbying they've successfully conducted in their enemy countries: All European Far-Right parties are essentially Russian-funded.
Russia's inability to take Ukraine could also be the key. All it took for the Romanovs to fall was a failed campaign in Japan. But then as now: without a proper economic and social plan for reconstruction; things will only get worse, and not better.
The US has mostly shifted the costs of the Ukraine war onto Europe, but it is still providing funding. As an article on the subject says, “Since Trump returned to office in January 2025, there has been no legislation or other authorizations of significant new aid to Ukraine. However, a substantial amount of the aid appropriated under the Biden administration is still in the pipeline, and deliveries of aid packages have continued, although on two occasions the Trump administration temporarily paused some deliveries.” My point remains that this is a proxy war that Ukraine could not have fought without the nearly $200 billion it has so far received from the US and a similar amount from Europe. I don’t think it is accurate to say Trump is backing Russia. If the US and Russia were on the same side against Ukraine, the war would be over.
Well, the USA is a capricious beast. Let us say that Trump is doing everything he can to help Putin. And that US aid has been substantial, but...Ukraine is fighting with her hands tied to her back. Until recently, anyways, the bombings of critical infrastructure in Moscow may change this, which is also how we can explain Trump now trying to sell Russian Diesel through American platforms, which up until now has been India's task.
We take America's alliance to Europe as exogenously granted, but...if Putin has his way, he will divide and conquer. This is also why Ukraine 'cannot' lose. Otherwise we are all doomed. Alas. What exciting times to live in. Not boring at all.
I suspect Russia has already won. I think there is zero chance of Ukraine now joining NATO. Ukraine is unlikely to ever recover from this war. It has become a land locked country. It has lost something like half its population. It isn’t at all clear to me that Europe is in a position to continue to finance the war. I can’t for the life of me see what defeating Russia would look like. If the ultimate objective is to remove Russia from Ukraine, there appears to be no chance of that. The long term objective looks like an endless war. That will not be good for Ukraine, which has already been shattered by the war. The only way I can see any of that happening is if Europe decides it will risk a nuclear war with Russia. Then we really will all be doomed. If someone would just explain to me how we might defeat Russia, I would be very interested. I have little doubt that Russia would rather see Ukraine a nuclear wasteland than see it part of NATO. Like I said, I can’t see what our strategy leading to victory looks like. And if you don’t have a strategy, you aren’t likely to achieve it.
I spent a lot of time in Russia, speak the language, can follow Ukrainian reasonably too, also knew and know a bunch of Ukrainians and Westerners who lived there (often due to their connections with Russia, which are common). I follow a lot of the exile Russian opposition media, of which there is a lot, with a large audience, and also much Ukrainian media. This picture looks reasonable, and the main point you make, that a way of beating Russia is not visible, is the key one. But I disagree that it can win, in any workable sense, or about Ukraine's weakness. A lot depends on how the West goes and what it will or will not do in relation to all of this. But Russia is weak in many ways. Internally too the big barrier is how daunting and distant any vision of defeating the regime is. But reports of popular support are very dubious, internal political cohesion is fragile, based on empty conformity and little else, the actual fighting is massively ineffective, wasteful, and riddled with corruption, and again much of it is Russians carrying out a performative minimum, who would rather not be there. And that's deepest in Russia, this authoritarian culture and the way it is tolerated, but not with any real substance. It's what's hard to beat, but what is ultimately also a structure that inevitably can't last, especially when under this kind of strain. But, yes, a long, drawn out situation seems the only visible way right now, and this could lead to complexities and a trigger point to worse. They would lose a conventional war quickly though, even if it was just an isolated affair with Baltic countries, so then it's a question of whether it might go nuclear. That is down to how cornered Putin would be (totally, there seems no way for him to choose to stop and survive), and also how resistant others in Russia may be to such a development (a deeply conformist culture, supported by mechanisms and systems that almost automate it, but also a ton of people who never wanted war, and when the seemingly "militarist" near cult of WW2 victory popularly actually more fostered a "never again" mentality, passed in by that generation). So definitely seems possible, via the drives of this fascist vore, but fraglie ss fascism has to be in how it excludes real human agency, and only arouse scared but non-committed conformity in most. His regime has to go, and very deeply and thoroughly a mass of much else that has lingered and festered in the shadows since the USSR: basically the KGB criminal core, but all that facilitates it, which goes far beyond. But that's a key difference: the USSR had some kind of governance beyond just arbitrary corruption and violence. There is only one part running things now, this psychopath KGB deep, rotten core. The only thing I can come up with is for other countries to start to support a mass exodus of those in Russia who don't support the war, while there might be a chance. Also to support some kind of visible emigré alternative, which the EU has done some initial things about. There was one big wave of emigration, there has been a constant outflow since, now there is another big wave. Though then the less of them in Russia, the less people to resist internally, but it does look virtually impossible for people to effectively unite internally to do anything. But also, Russians in general have far less of an inclination to war than seems to be believed. These crooks at the top do not represent the population at large, the main clue being in their blanket banning and even deleting of all opposition media in 2022, their attacks on the mildest comments of disagreement from the population, in varied and severe breach of even their current constitution, etc. And Ukraine has so much less of this dumb, hierarchical way of operating, and has something far more robust, effective, and efficient, than the Russian way of waging war. The whole Russian edifice is far more of a fragile shell than most see, and on far shaker ground. But, yes, dauting, the collapse could take a good while, and it could be very ugly, and more conflict with us may be what arises as their attempted, desperate defence against it. But also I don't see any real diplomacy with the regime possible, in its very narrow and singular state, only with Russians who may oppose it, who seem to have an impossible task. A turn somewhere in the army and/or security services looks like one of the few potentially useful openings, but also maybe way too much based on wishful thinking.
I'll think about the rest later, but for my competitive cyberpunk card game I am currently writing an article on how 'If your opponent can convince you that you have already lost, then indeed: You already have'
You know Trevor, you're usually quite bright, but...this George Beebe guy might in fact be a Russian plant. At least from reading older articles he wrote, he does seem to eschew a lot of Kremlin talking points (our election are free, promise) but wrapped up in such a way to make them palpable to the politically undecided. Not sure yet though - it's also possible he's an idiot.
But it reminds me of my own thinking before the current conflict escalated in 2022. I was agreeing a lot with Mearsheimer at the time, taking a realpolitical stance on things. The corridors of disinformation are broad indeed.
All of which seems to amount to saying we can place no weight upon anything that the Russians say and there is less than zero point in speaking with them or seeing any diplomatic channels. Perhaps we should rush towards nuclear war since it otherwise seems inevitable and at least we would have the element of surprise if we started it now rather than waiting. Anything else would be to risk being stooges and useful idiots. Russia isn’t the only dying empire that terrifies me, nor the only one based on corruption and authoritarianism. Perhaps letting the whole thing die is the rational thing to do.
Well the first thing we must do is accept that the Russian strategy is one of mass disinformation. The second thing is that it may not even be Russia that sits atop that throne, or that there is a cruel alliance at play: Epstein's network comes to mind (ties to Breitbart, 4chan, etc).
In time one will find that rationality can be its own kind of cult. There is a fascinating podcast episode on Musks ancestor being an early proponent of technocracy, and how it informs Amazon's dehumanising work practices of the day. I am as ever in love with the idea of dying empires...
Another thing we must recognise, Trevor, is that the prime weapon of the enemy is fear. Fear and hopelessness, more than anything, is the weapon through which the fascists across the globe access power.
I believe that one day, Russia will be free again. I want nothing more than that. But - she's gonna need to lose first, and fall gently.
If you could explain to me how Russia will lose, that would be great. Otherwise, all I can see is that everyone loses.
If I had an easy answer to that question; well, that would be grand. But I think the particulars of the conflict I leave to the experts. I'll just sketch out one potential avenue to get out of things.
1. The Russian populace becomes increasingly disaffected with a war that is a. killing their children and b. destroying the economic prospects of their country.
2. Someone decides something must be done.
3. We back the right kind of insurrectionist
4. We achieve a regime change.
This is all rather fanciful except for the fact that it already happened once, a good 100 years ago. A failed Russian campaign in Japan utterly broke the legitimacy of the Romanovs. It could happen again.
On the nukes - not much good in a civil war.
This all sounds like what was meant to happen in Iran - that didn't quite turn out as anticipated.
Nothing ever does. Still, we must plan.
Have you read The Remains of the Day? I think about the dinner scene a lot lately.
I have, but a long time ago, I can't remember the dinner scene.
The butler, played in the movie by Anthony Hopkins, desires nothing more than to serve his lord.
His Lord has seen the destruction and state of destitution in post-WW1 Germany first hand. His Lord is an empathetic man. His Lord hosts a dinner for esteemed guests of the Nazi party, in which Anthony Hopkins' character does his utmost to do what he can. This is also a source of conflict with his secret love interest, as she protests the firing of two Jewish maids at the behest of his Lord.
Appearances must be kept up.
At the party dinner, an American diplomat is observed causing a scene - he's been inciting a ruckus all evening, disturbing the otherwise jovial and merry atmosphere. When confronted by the staff, he stands up, and gives a little speech: 'What kind of game do you think we're playing here?'
I've been thinking about it a lot. To me, this was the highlight of the novel.
I think the hollowness of the Russian state's support, the regime's inherent fragility, is the main reason it can never win, and also why it's unsustainable. This is also why it could become far more oppressive and why its eventual collapse may take a long time, and also may be very violent. And it could, like North Korea or Iran, etc. , have a decades-long, generations-long situation of severe rigidity and authoritarianism, but they will all collapse eventually, one way or another, and Iran is at more risk than NK, because its population has more awareness, and Russia perhaps even more so, because the population did enjoy great personal freedoms for 3 decades, and also its fanaticism is in reality a minority thing. The key driver there is a kind of individualism, loyalty only to oneself and those very close, that keeps its head down out of necessity. They conform, fear and avoid confrontation with the régime, but have little loyalty really, and it's performative, shallow, doing the minimum, and will be very happy to change allegiances. This means though that a powerful armed security system is how control is kept there, and both why it's so hard to do anything and why people fear and keep their heads down. A stalemate of a cowed populace against a regime which is strong only in how it maintains that coarse, rigid threat to exploit its own population. It is inflexible and weak in the face of more human cultures, and also ones where there is genuine support and engagement from the people, will be less and less able to fight those other cultures or properly support its own structures and systems. Andcat some point some other serious area of power will see a chance to take over. The question is when, how violent it might need to be, and whether that takeover will be by others will distorted thirsts for power or not. An army coup maybe, infighting in state and security apparatus, etc. Maybe triggered by more conflict with other countries too. That's the problem: the people pretty much won't but also can't change it, but such States are inherently weak in the long-term, so the question is of how many years or decades, and at what cost?
Good analysis, and I 'mostly' agree, but I think that the luxury of time is an illusion here. To wait and see is to invite another power to usurp Russia, and then doom awaits. I'm fairly certain of that.
Saying that Russia has misunderstood NATO’s benign intentions in expanding to the Russian borders is like saying the Allies misunderstood Germany's benign intentions when it annexed the Sudetenland. Most Western analysis is incoherent (see comments above) because it fails to admit that the US and NATO are the aggressive expansionist empire that they accuse everyone else of being.
Matt, indeed. I read something today where Trump blamed Iran for the inflation caused by higher oil prices and said Yemen was being unreasonably in bombing Saudi airports. He went so far as to call them ‘Not nice’. You’d almost think Iran wasn’t responding to the declared existential threat from the US’s war of choice and Saudi hadn’t bombed a Yemeni airport first. We appear to have 20/20 vision for the propaganda of our enemies while being blind to our own.
@Trevor: Propoaganda is most effective when it is the truth, served on a particular intentional platter so as to work to one's favor.
@Matt: Ask any Swede, Pole, Latvian, Estonian, Ukrainian, Finn or Lithuanian about Russian expansionism, and they'll give you a much more sober and realistic view of things.
We can argue against Russia's expansionist war without excusing any of the actions the US has taken over the past decades. But also observe - Trump is dismantling NATO as we speak - to whose benefit? It should be obvious indeed. Neither the old nor the new world order (one restructured under some oligarchs in America, or Russia, or China) is desirable. An answer must be found.
Matt, I can assure you (as an Estonian), NATO did not aggressively expand to our territories. It was the democratic agency of our population, informed by our experience of 50 years of totalitarian soviet occupation / colonialism, that led to us joining NATO. Luckily for us, because otherwise our children would be dying under Russian bombs like the children in Ukraine, who, unfortunately, did not manage to join NATO in time.
Joosep, I can assure you (as an American) that you are now a proxy state for American Empire and we are currently paying your elites to allow us to drain your resources, and will use your country and the other Baltics as chess pieces to inflict as much damage on Russia as possible, with no thought whatsoever for the destruction we cause to Estonia.
Like Matt, I think the US will be happy to fight this war to the last Ukrainian and to the last Estonian if they can. When I was in Estonia a few years ago, it was very obvious how much the Estonians despised the Russians. What wasn’t clear was how that might be resolved. Everything everyone has said so far implies nothing can be resolved and the only hope is the complete collapse of Russia. If this is the strategy people are wishing for, it will need prayers to a god I don’t believe in. I would rather people tried diplomacy, given the alternative seems to be the whole of Europe reduced to ash because it kept pushing the world’s largest nuclear power into war. Fortunately, I live in Australia, but I will miss Europe all the same.
Russian propaganda must have done an amazing job if Russian imperialism is framed as "being pushed into war". At the same time: Two children were among six people killed in a Russian drone strike on a park in Nova Vodolaha, Kharkiv Oblast, on Oct. 19. The victims included two girls, aged eight and one, three women aged 28, 34, and 36, and a man around 40 years old, ... at least 15 people were injured, including seven children. The drone struck the town's central park while many people, including families with children, were there, Interior Minister Ivan Vyhivskyi said. He also pointed out that the attack made no military sense.
It’s always so absolutely depressing to hear “western” analyses of Russia and its murderous wars. How almost none of the old, white guys in anglophone countries understands what’s going on in Russia and think that any contrarian opinion (whatever version of “the child-raping mass-murdering imperialists just want to be friends, why don’t you wanna be friends with them?” you’ve cooked up today).
And there’s always gotta be an American with the “yeah-yeah, butwattaabouttheamericanempire, we’re evil too, you know”. Estonia was dealing with the murderous Russian Empire long before the US was even a country. The Ukrainians (along with the entire Eastern Europe) are not fighting anything on behalf of your elites; they’re fighting so that the Russians wouldn’t kill, rape, and deport their children (or are the American elites making them do that, you absolute dimwits?).
I’m just baffled by this incessant, overwhelming desire to sit down and have a drink with the fucking nazis (have you not learned anything from history?). “Yeah, I know they’re the nazis, but maybe they’re just misunderstood. Momma-momma, can I just go play with the nazis? I really-really would like to just have a little chat with the nazis. Yeah, I know they’ve never stopped killing people for the last couple of hundred years, but it’s no fun without the nazis. Momma, can I, can I? Momma, I wanna have “deeeplomacy” with the nazis; this time they’ll listen for sure! What if we give them more land and let them deport entire nations? Maybe then they’ll play nice, Momma?”
So, the only solution is nuclear war with the world’s most heavily armed nuclear state. Nothing else is even worth trying. Cool.
Another Estonian here, sorry for the onslought, I guess :D
What I wanna say, is: look around in other International Relations publications and see if all the people take the nuclear blackmail seriously. I don't think most of them do. (going out on a limb here, I haven't checked).
But according to best of my knowledge, even Russia's so-called allies like China wouldn't support this move. Together we could be so, so much stronger than Russia that it's not even funny. It's only we've gotten used to some ideas by Trump administration and let the Russian propaganda fool us for so long..
If Russia is indeed a rational actor, it has no reason to launch a nuclear attack: doing so would ensure it loses any shred of leverage it has had so far and would almost definitely result in its utter destruction.
If Russia, on the other hand, is not a rational actor, it might launch a nuclear attack for any reasons it could come up with (say, Zelenskyy having two coffees instead of one tomorrow morning). Mind you, launching a nuclear attack because, god forbid, a sovereign country wants to maintain its borders and self-determine, is not rational by any measure. Now, if Russia is not a rational actor, there is no reason to argue or appease or “make peace”, because it gives no more or less guarantees of avoiding nuclear war.
Right now, there’s a terrorist in the town square with a bunch of hostages, and he keeps shooting them one by one. And even though the police have been negotiating with him for the last hundred years, he simply refuses to listen and just keeps on shooting. Meanwhile, you stumble on the sidelines, hollering at the police to just please put down their guns and have a conversation. If that’s not gullible, I don’t know what is.
I am very interested that the author sees pre WWI diplomacy as a positive, ok we can say that great power congesses dividing up Africa or the Balkans avoided (or postponed) wars between the Great powers, but they wrre hardly good solutions for the peoples affected by those decisions and who were excluded from participating in them. How does he deal with that, what kind of mechanism is he proposing, since presumably he does not regard the UN & security council as fit for purpose?
I do not think that nuclear war is likely. What would be the point from Russia's perspective? Troops densities are very low, I have heard on average five soldiers per linear kilomete, plus with inflitration tactics there are not. Concentrated masses of soldiers who could be usefully destroyed in a nuclear attack. Why would Russia strike Kyiv when it wants to occupy it, or install a friendly government in it? I would guess that France and the UK would go through quite a bit if escalation and engagement before they would consider a nuclear attack on Russia.
Looking at Trump's war on Iran and fighting between Russia and Ukraine in Africa, one could argue that chances of a world war are high, but it would be a new kind of world war apparently without clear or consistent blocks.
While I agree that it is hard to imagine a battlefield victory for Ukraine, I don't see a battlefield victory for Russia either, I would say that they have in fact been counting on victory at the negotiation table since Trump was elected as President, and that they have been conducting a lot of diplomacy, a RN victory in the French presidental elections will change the dynamic in Europe a lot in Russia's favour.
I suspect this will turn out to be a new thirty years war, hopefully counting from 2014, and that it might end with a new security architecture for Europe.
I’m not sure what diplomatic means have been attempted. All solutions at present seem to amount to an escalation of the war or accepting we will fight to the last Ukrainian, given the country’s population has halved, and half of those left are pensioners, and they appear to have lost a generation of young men, it isn’t at all clear to me what ‘victory’ would look like. I can’t see how this can go on for another 15 years. A diplomatic solution to the Iran war also looks beyond us too. Ukraine was recently seeking to merge these two wars. I think his point about comparing our situation to that before WW1 was that blocks of alliances forced hands when push came to shove, hands that would rather have not gone to war. But everyone seems to believe that Russia will do one of two things, win in Ukraine and then take over Europe, which seems absurd to me, or suffer defeat while never using its nuclear weapons. So, we can continue to assist Ukraine in bombing Russian cities and even their nuclear warning systems and Russia will not see this as either escalation or existential. It would seem to me we can’t have it both ways. Either Russia is an irrational threat that must be stopped at all costs, then it seems to me nuclear war is inevitable. Or we need to start negotiations. Sanctions and proxy war have achieved a land locked Ukraine that will never recover, as far as I can see. Someone explain to me how this war ends, because I don’t see it. Our refusal to even contemplate diplomacy terrifies me. As the author says, we talked with the Soviet Union throughout most of the Cold War. And they literally wanted the end of the west. How was it rational to use diplomacy then, but irrational to use it now?
Would you remind us what exactly happened in ’91: did the Soviet Union dissolve because the US had such wonderful talks with them, or did it collapse under immense internal and external pressure? The real end of the war involves immense and absolute financial and political pressure on Russia and any of its allies, as well as supporting Ukraine militarily to the fullest extent. If the West got its shit together (yes, the support has been very real but not nearly as complete, fast and substantial as it could’ve been), the war would be over fairly quickly (especially assuming Russia is a rational actor, which you do). And please don’t start another argument over how much the West has already helped, etc., etc.; we all know that with the US war machine really behind it, there would be no war by now.
Now, say we did negotiate with Russia, make concessions, reach agreements, lift sanctions, etc. The West has done this a couple of times in the last 40-odd years, and every single time, Russia has started a new unprovoked conflict a few years down the line. Your “diplomatic” solution to the war means a sure-fire continuation of war in another region bordering Russia, destroying yet another country or countries (and their people). Would you care to explain how this is preferable to trying to end this war while preventing future conflicts by not making concessions and allowing Russia to recuperate (at least not as quickly) for the next one?
What seems most absurd to me is that you don’t address, for a moment, the fact that the war has no rational reason, no actual provocation, and no real claims. For Russia, this is a land-grab (which is looking less and less probable now), but for the most part, war for war’s sake (without war, Russia has no real way of asserting its non-existent power in the world nor explaining its rampant poverty to its own people). You cannot make lasting peace with someone whose goal is either world-domination or constant war. It’s clear that such a war-mongering force will not be stopped by peace talks: why would it, and what would it get out of that? Since there was no real reason for attacking Ukraine, why would Russia not attack the rest of Eastern Europe and continue further in the future?
The main question here is: why are you so hell-bent on negotiating with Hitler? What happened when the British negotiated back then? (Camilla made a poignant reference to “The Remains of the Day”; may I suggest a re-read?) Did he stop exterminating the Jewish people and conquering Europe?
So, presumably you would recommend the same policy for all such states. That we should behave identically to Israel since it is currently at war with virtually every bordering nation and clearly is in a state of constant war. And the US has been in near constant war since its inception. I believe we were incredibly lucky with the collapse of the Soviet Union. There was no reason at all to believe it would collapse without turning to nuclear weapons, and many reasons why it could have done so. Assuming the same thing will happen again appears foolhardy to me. I don’t see Russia collapsing economically, if anything the opposite appears to be the case. I do believe Russia believes it is facing an existential threat from the west, not least since we constantly tell it that is the case. I don’t remember the nations it has constantly attacked over the last 40 years. Do you mean Iraq, Iran, Libya, Syria, Yemen, Venezuela? Or was that someone else? The work of fiction this book seeks to remind us of is Dr Strangelove. Where the world spins out of control and comes to an end. But even in that world there was direct communication between the adversaries. Something that doesn’t exist today. And from reading the comments here, people are clearly delighted that no such communication exists. Ukraine reconfirms what was obvious since Vietnam, Afghanistan (twice), Iraq - that war can destroy a country, but conquering it is impossible, regardless of how powerful the invading force. If your hope is that Russia will collapse in the same way the USSR did, I can see no possibility of that happening. It looks to me like wishful thinking in the extreme while betting the survival of the whole of humanity on that wish.
Trevor wrote: "So, presumably you would recommend the same policy for all such states. That we should behave identically to Israel since it is currently at war with virtually every bordering nation and clearly is..."
You’re proposing a world order where any nuclear power can (and thus should, because why wouldn’t it then?) attack and kill as much as it wants without any real consequences, because you personally don’t believe any consequence (besides appeasement) can actually deter them. Yes, I think that if Israel or the US (or any state, for that matter) has a long-standing history of attacking neighbouring countries just for the sake of attacking them, occupying their land and killing their people without any provocation whatsoever, they should be isolated internationally. It’s also curious that you think it is possible to negotiate with a state that consistently breaks every international rule, law, and treaty it has signed whenever it suits it. What would such negotiations yield? If Russia were to promise to stop the war in Ukraine, why would it actually do so (there is so much past precedent showing that it won’t keep its promises) or at least not restart fighting in the future (after rebuilding its military)? What does the West gain from agreeing to the terms of a war-mongering state when that state won’t keep its end of the deal? You’re being willfully ignorant here. You want a world where everyone plays by Russia’s rules while they play by none.
This thread also makes it painfully clear that you have a horribly superficial knowledge of Russian conflict history. Take a closer look at their war in Moldova and especially all the conflicts in Georgia (not to forget Chechnya). It goes: 1) Russia creates and funds some separatist movement; 2) Russia supplies them with weapons and soldiers; 3) “the separatist movement” conquers land, sets up their own fake state and destabilises the sovereign country. All of these conflicts have gone hand in hand with Western diplomatic efforts to ensure the scenario wouldn’t repeat. Yet, it always has, thanks to voices (yours, my dear fellow) calling for reestablishing economic and political ties with Russia, which then uses those benefits to strengthen its economy and its military and launches another attack.
I suggest you read up before commenting further. No need to keep on your Kremlin-trolling. <3
Trevor wrote: "I’m not sure what diplomatic means have been attempted. All solutions at present seem to amount to an escalation of the war or accepting we will fight to the last Ukrainian, given the country’s pop..."
President Macron and Olaf Scholtz while chancellor of Germany both talked directly to Putin, there have been quite a few prisoner exchanges as well, several mediated through one of the Gulf states and once I think by Türkiyë. There are direct diplomatic contact but neither Russia nor Ukraine is ready for peace negotiations judging by their public statements, things will have to get worse for one side or the other first, or some other change will have to occur.
The war is de facto existential for Putin, but I don't see how nuclear weapons could bring him closer to victory, partly because they haven't been used in anger since 1945 no nuclear power knows how any other state might react. What would China or India do? Using a nuclear weapon is just a risk in every way, and why destroy a European capital if Russia can work perfectly well with certain political parties might might either come to power or gum up the political process and so limit or prevent further assistance to Ukraine?
Possibly there is something of a block effect too, we do not know quite what influence China is having over Russia now, quite possibly they are having a restraining influence. They have do far held back on selling munitions to Russia.
Ukraine is not land locked. Russia was forced to withdraw from right bank Kherson in 2022 and the coast line west of Kherson including the ports of Odesa and Mikolaiv have continuously been in Ukrainian hands.
back to top
date
newest »
newest »
'If the whole of Europe with massive support from the US cannot stop Russia in Ukraine' Are you joking? The US has been backing Russia more than Ukraine for a long time now (since the election basically). The mere fact that Ukraine has held on for this long is a minor miracle and showcases Russia's warmaking ineptitude.
Russia's real genius is the lobbying they've successfully conducted in their enemy countries: All European Far-Right parties are essentially Russian-funded.
Russia's inability to take Ukraine could also be the key. All it took for the Romanovs to fall was a failed campaign in Japan. But then as now: without a proper economic and social plan for reconstruction; things will only get worse, and not better.
The US has mostly shifted the costs of the Ukraine war onto Europe, but it is still providing funding. As an article on the subject says, “Since Trump returned to office in January 2025, there has been no legislation or other authorizations of significant new aid to Ukraine. However, a substantial amount of the aid appropriated under the Biden administration is still in the pipeline, and deliveries of aid packages have continued, although on two occasions the Trump administration temporarily paused some deliveries.” My point remains that this is a proxy war that Ukraine could not have fought without the nearly $200 billion it has so far received from the US and a similar amount from Europe. I don’t think it is accurate to say Trump is backing Russia. If the US and Russia were on the same side against Ukraine, the war would be over.
Well, the USA is a capricious beast. Let us say that Trump is doing everything he can to help Putin. And that US aid has been substantial, but...Ukraine is fighting with her hands tied to her back. Until recently, anyways, the bombings of critical infrastructure in Moscow may change this, which is also how we can explain Trump now trying to sell Russian Diesel through American platforms, which up until now has been India's task. We take America's alliance to Europe as exogenously granted, but...if Putin has his way, he will divide and conquer. This is also why Ukraine 'cannot' lose. Otherwise we are all doomed. Alas. What exciting times to live in. Not boring at all.
I suspect Russia has already won. I think there is zero chance of Ukraine now joining NATO. Ukraine is unlikely to ever recover from this war. It has become a land locked country. It has lost something like half its population. It isn’t at all clear to me that Europe is in a position to continue to finance the war. I can’t for the life of me see what defeating Russia would look like. If the ultimate objective is to remove Russia from Ukraine, there appears to be no chance of that. The long term objective looks like an endless war. That will not be good for Ukraine, which has already been shattered by the war. The only way I can see any of that happening is if Europe decides it will risk a nuclear war with Russia. Then we really will all be doomed. If someone would just explain to me how we might defeat Russia, I would be very interested. I have little doubt that Russia would rather see Ukraine a nuclear wasteland than see it part of NATO. Like I said, I can’t see what our strategy leading to victory looks like. And if you don’t have a strategy, you aren’t likely to achieve it.
I spent a lot of time in Russia, speak the language, can follow Ukrainian reasonably too, also knew and know a bunch of Ukrainians and Westerners who lived there (often due to their connections with Russia, which are common). I follow a lot of the exile Russian opposition media, of which there is a lot, with a large audience, and also much Ukrainian media. This picture looks reasonable, and the main point you make, that a way of beating Russia is not visible, is the key one. But I disagree that it can win, in any workable sense, or about Ukraine's weakness. A lot depends on how the West goes and what it will or will not do in relation to all of this. But Russia is weak in many ways. Internally too the big barrier is how daunting and distant any vision of defeating the regime is. But reports of popular support are very dubious, internal political cohesion is fragile, based on empty conformity and little else, the actual fighting is massively ineffective, wasteful, and riddled with corruption, and again much of it is Russians carrying out a performative minimum, who would rather not be there. And that's deepest in Russia, this authoritarian culture and the way it is tolerated, but not with any real substance. It's what's hard to beat, but what is ultimately also a structure that inevitably can't last, especially when under this kind of strain. But, yes, a long, drawn out situation seems the only visible way right now, and this could lead to complexities and a trigger point to worse. They would lose a conventional war quickly though, even if it was just an isolated affair with Baltic countries, so then it's a question of whether it might go nuclear. That is down to how cornered Putin would be (totally, there seems no way for him to choose to stop and survive), and also how resistant others in Russia may be to such a development (a deeply conformist culture, supported by mechanisms and systems that almost automate it, but also a ton of people who never wanted war, and when the seemingly "militarist" near cult of WW2 victory popularly actually more fostered a "never again" mentality, passed in by that generation). So definitely seems possible, via the drives of this fascist vore, but fraglie ss fascism has to be in how it excludes real human agency, and only arouse scared but non-committed conformity in most. His regime has to go, and very deeply and thoroughly a mass of much else that has lingered and festered in the shadows since the USSR: basically the KGB criminal core, but all that facilitates it, which goes far beyond. But that's a key difference: the USSR had some kind of governance beyond just arbitrary corruption and violence. There is only one part running things now, this psychopath KGB deep, rotten core. The only thing I can come up with is for other countries to start to support a mass exodus of those in Russia who don't support the war, while there might be a chance. Also to support some kind of visible emigré alternative, which the EU has done some initial things about. There was one big wave of emigration, there has been a constant outflow since, now there is another big wave. Though then the less of them in Russia, the less people to resist internally, but it does look virtually impossible for people to effectively unite internally to do anything. But also, Russians in general have far less of an inclination to war than seems to be believed. These crooks at the top do not represent the population at large, the main clue being in their blanket banning and even deleting of all opposition media in 2022, their attacks on the mildest comments of disagreement from the population, in varied and severe breach of even their current constitution, etc. And Ukraine has so much less of this dumb, hierarchical way of operating, and has something far more robust, effective, and efficient, than the Russian way of waging war. The whole Russian edifice is far more of a fragile shell than most see, and on far shaker ground. But, yes, dauting, the collapse could take a good while, and it could be very ugly, and more conflict with us may be what arises as their attempted, desperate defence against it. But also I don't see any real diplomacy with the regime possible, in its very narrow and singular state, only with Russians who may oppose it, who seem to have an impossible task. A turn somewhere in the army and/or security services looks like one of the few potentially useful openings, but also maybe way too much based on wishful thinking.
I'll think about the rest later, but for my competitive cyberpunk card game I am currently writing an article on how 'If your opponent can convince you that you have already lost, then indeed: You already have'
You know Trevor, you're usually quite bright, but...this George Beebe guy might in fact be a Russian plant. At least from reading older articles he wrote, he does seem to eschew a lot of Kremlin talking points (our election are free, promise) but wrapped up in such a way to make them palpable to the politically undecided. Not sure yet though - it's also possible he's an idiot.
But it reminds me of my own thinking before the current conflict escalated in 2022. I was agreeing a lot with Mearsheimer at the time, taking a realpolitical stance on things. The corridors of disinformation are broad indeed.
All of which seems to amount to saying we can place no weight upon anything that the Russians say and there is less than zero point in speaking with them or seeing any diplomatic channels. Perhaps we should rush towards nuclear war since it otherwise seems inevitable and at least we would have the element of surprise if we started it now rather than waiting. Anything else would be to risk being stooges and useful idiots. Russia isn’t the only dying empire that terrifies me, nor the only one based on corruption and authoritarianism. Perhaps letting the whole thing die is the rational thing to do.
Well the first thing we must do is accept that the Russian strategy is one of mass disinformation. The second thing is that it may not even be Russia that sits atop that throne, or that there is a cruel alliance at play: Epstein's network comes to mind (ties to Breitbart, 4chan, etc). In time one will find that rationality can be its own kind of cult. There is a fascinating podcast episode on Musks ancestor being an early proponent of technocracy, and how it informs Amazon's dehumanising work practices of the day. I am as ever in love with the idea of dying empires...
Another thing we must recognise, Trevor, is that the prime weapon of the enemy is fear. Fear and hopelessness, more than anything, is the weapon through which the fascists across the globe access power.
I believe that one day, Russia will be free again. I want nothing more than that. But - she's gonna need to lose first, and fall gently.
If you could explain to me how Russia will lose, that would be great. Otherwise, all I can see is that everyone loses.
If I had an easy answer to that question; well, that would be grand. But I think the particulars of the conflict I leave to the experts. I'll just sketch out one potential avenue to get out of things.1. The Russian populace becomes increasingly disaffected with a war that is a. killing their children and b. destroying the economic prospects of their country.
2. Someone decides something must be done.
3. We back the right kind of insurrectionist
4. We achieve a regime change.
This is all rather fanciful except for the fact that it already happened once, a good 100 years ago. A failed Russian campaign in Japan utterly broke the legitimacy of the Romanovs. It could happen again.
On the nukes - not much good in a civil war.
This all sounds like what was meant to happen in Iran - that didn't quite turn out as anticipated.
Nothing ever does. Still, we must plan. Have you read The Remains of the Day? I think about the dinner scene a lot lately.
I have, but a long time ago, I can't remember the dinner scene.
The butler, played in the movie by Anthony Hopkins, desires nothing more than to serve his lord.His Lord has seen the destruction and state of destitution in post-WW1 Germany first hand. His Lord is an empathetic man. His Lord hosts a dinner for esteemed guests of the Nazi party, in which Anthony Hopkins' character does his utmost to do what he can. This is also a source of conflict with his secret love interest, as she protests the firing of two Jewish maids at the behest of his Lord.
Appearances must be kept up.
At the party dinner, an American diplomat is observed causing a scene - he's been inciting a ruckus all evening, disturbing the otherwise jovial and merry atmosphere. When confronted by the staff, he stands up, and gives a little speech: 'What kind of game do you think we're playing here?'
I've been thinking about it a lot. To me, this was the highlight of the novel.
I think the hollowness of the Russian state's support, the regime's inherent fragility, is the main reason it can never win, and also why it's unsustainable. This is also why it could become far more oppressive and why its eventual collapse may take a long time, and also may be very violent. And it could, like North Korea or Iran, etc. , have a decades-long, generations-long situation of severe rigidity and authoritarianism, but they will all collapse eventually, one way or another, and Iran is at more risk than NK, because its population has more awareness, and Russia perhaps even more so, because the population did enjoy great personal freedoms for 3 decades, and also its fanaticism is in reality a minority thing. The key driver there is a kind of individualism, loyalty only to oneself and those very close, that keeps its head down out of necessity. They conform, fear and avoid confrontation with the régime, but have little loyalty really, and it's performative, shallow, doing the minimum, and will be very happy to change allegiances. This means though that a powerful armed security system is how control is kept there, and both why it's so hard to do anything and why people fear and keep their heads down. A stalemate of a cowed populace against a regime which is strong only in how it maintains that coarse, rigid threat to exploit its own population. It is inflexible and weak in the face of more human cultures, and also ones where there is genuine support and engagement from the people, will be less and less able to fight those other cultures or properly support its own structures and systems. Andcat some point some other serious area of power will see a chance to take over. The question is when, how violent it might need to be, and whether that takeover will be by others will distorted thirsts for power or not. An army coup maybe, infighting in state and security apparatus, etc. Maybe triggered by more conflict with other countries too. That's the problem: the people pretty much won't but also can't change it, but such States are inherently weak in the long-term, so the question is of how many years or decades, and at what cost?
Good analysis, and I 'mostly' agree, but I think that the luxury of time is an illusion here. To wait and see is to invite another power to usurp Russia, and then doom awaits. I'm fairly certain of that.
Saying that Russia has misunderstood NATO’s benign intentions in expanding to the Russian borders is like saying the Allies misunderstood Germany's benign intentions when it annexed the Sudetenland. Most Western analysis is incoherent (see comments above) because it fails to admit that the US and NATO are the aggressive expansionist empire that they accuse everyone else of being.
Matt, indeed. I read something today where Trump blamed Iran for the inflation caused by higher oil prices and said Yemen was being unreasonably in bombing Saudi airports. He went so far as to call them ‘Not nice’. You’d almost think Iran wasn’t responding to the declared existential threat from the US’s war of choice and Saudi hadn’t bombed a Yemeni airport first. We appear to have 20/20 vision for the propaganda of our enemies while being blind to our own.
@Trevor: Propoaganda is most effective when it is the truth, served on a particular intentional platter so as to work to one's favor. @Matt: Ask any Swede, Pole, Latvian, Estonian, Ukrainian, Finn or Lithuanian about Russian expansionism, and they'll give you a much more sober and realistic view of things.
We can argue against Russia's expansionist war without excusing any of the actions the US has taken over the past decades. But also observe - Trump is dismantling NATO as we speak - to whose benefit? It should be obvious indeed. Neither the old nor the new world order (one restructured under some oligarchs in America, or Russia, or China) is desirable. An answer must be found.
Matt, I can assure you (as an Estonian), NATO did not aggressively expand to our territories. It was the democratic agency of our population, informed by our experience of 50 years of totalitarian soviet occupation / colonialism, that led to us joining NATO. Luckily for us, because otherwise our children would be dying under Russian bombs like the children in Ukraine, who, unfortunately, did not manage to join NATO in time.
Joosep, I can assure you (as an American) that you are now a proxy state for American Empire and we are currently paying your elites to allow us to drain your resources, and will use your country and the other Baltics as chess pieces to inflict as much damage on Russia as possible, with no thought whatsoever for the destruction we cause to Estonia.
Like Matt, I think the US will be happy to fight this war to the last Ukrainian and to the last Estonian if they can. When I was in Estonia a few years ago, it was very obvious how much the Estonians despised the Russians. What wasn’t clear was how that might be resolved. Everything everyone has said so far implies nothing can be resolved and the only hope is the complete collapse of Russia. If this is the strategy people are wishing for, it will need prayers to a god I don’t believe in. I would rather people tried diplomacy, given the alternative seems to be the whole of Europe reduced to ash because it kept pushing the world’s largest nuclear power into war. Fortunately, I live in Australia, but I will miss Europe all the same.
Russian propaganda must have done an amazing job if Russian imperialism is framed as "being pushed into war". At the same time: Two children were among six people killed in a Russian drone strike on a park in Nova Vodolaha, Kharkiv Oblast, on Oct. 19. The victims included two girls, aged eight and one, three women aged 28, 34, and 36, and a man around 40 years old, ... at least 15 people were injured, including seven children. The drone struck the town's central park while many people, including families with children, were there, Interior Minister Ivan Vyhivskyi said. He also pointed out that the attack made no military sense.
It’s always so absolutely depressing to hear “western” analyses of Russia and its murderous wars. How almost none of the old, white guys in anglophone countries understands what’s going on in Russia and think that any contrarian opinion (whatever version of “the child-raping mass-murdering imperialists just want to be friends, why don’t you wanna be friends with them?” you’ve cooked up today).And there’s always gotta be an American with the “yeah-yeah, butwattaabouttheamericanempire, we’re evil too, you know”. Estonia was dealing with the murderous Russian Empire long before the US was even a country. The Ukrainians (along with the entire Eastern Europe) are not fighting anything on behalf of your elites; they’re fighting so that the Russians wouldn’t kill, rape, and deport their children (or are the American elites making them do that, you absolute dimwits?).
I’m just baffled by this incessant, overwhelming desire to sit down and have a drink with the fucking nazis (have you not learned anything from history?). “Yeah, I know they’re the nazis, but maybe they’re just misunderstood. Momma-momma, can I just go play with the nazis? I really-really would like to just have a little chat with the nazis. Yeah, I know they’ve never stopped killing people for the last couple of hundred years, but it’s no fun without the nazis. Momma, can I, can I? Momma, I wanna have “deeeplomacy” with the nazis; this time they’ll listen for sure! What if we give them more land and let them deport entire nations? Maybe then they’ll play nice, Momma?”
So, the only solution is nuclear war with the world’s most heavily armed nuclear state. Nothing else is even worth trying. Cool.
Another Estonian here, sorry for the onslought, I guess :D What I wanna say, is: look around in other International Relations publications and see if all the people take the nuclear blackmail seriously. I don't think most of them do. (going out on a limb here, I haven't checked).
But according to best of my knowledge, even Russia's so-called allies like China wouldn't support this move. Together we could be so, so much stronger than Russia that it's not even funny. It's only we've gotten used to some ideas by Trump administration and let the Russian propaganda fool us for so long..
If Russia is indeed a rational actor, it has no reason to launch a nuclear attack: doing so would ensure it loses any shred of leverage it has had so far and would almost definitely result in its utter destruction. If Russia, on the other hand, is not a rational actor, it might launch a nuclear attack for any reasons it could come up with (say, Zelenskyy having two coffees instead of one tomorrow morning). Mind you, launching a nuclear attack because, god forbid, a sovereign country wants to maintain its borders and self-determine, is not rational by any measure. Now, if Russia is not a rational actor, there is no reason to argue or appease or “make peace”, because it gives no more or less guarantees of avoiding nuclear war.
Right now, there’s a terrorist in the town square with a bunch of hostages, and he keeps shooting them one by one. And even though the police have been negotiating with him for the last hundred years, he simply refuses to listen and just keeps on shooting. Meanwhile, you stumble on the sidelines, hollering at the police to just please put down their guns and have a conversation. If that’s not gullible, I don’t know what is.
I am very interested that the author sees pre WWI diplomacy as a positive, ok we can say that great power congesses dividing up Africa or the Balkans avoided (or postponed) wars between the Great powers, but they wrre hardly good solutions for the peoples affected by those decisions and who were excluded from participating in them. How does he deal with that, what kind of mechanism is he proposing, since presumably he does not regard the UN & security council as fit for purpose?I do not think that nuclear war is likely. What would be the point from Russia's perspective? Troops densities are very low, I have heard on average five soldiers per linear kilomete, plus with inflitration tactics there are not. Concentrated masses of soldiers who could be usefully destroyed in a nuclear attack. Why would Russia strike Kyiv when it wants to occupy it, or install a friendly government in it? I would guess that France and the UK would go through quite a bit if escalation and engagement before they would consider a nuclear attack on Russia.
Looking at Trump's war on Iran and fighting between Russia and Ukraine in Africa, one could argue that chances of a world war are high, but it would be a new kind of world war apparently without clear or consistent blocks.
While I agree that it is hard to imagine a battlefield victory for Ukraine, I don't see a battlefield victory for Russia either, I would say that they have in fact been counting on victory at the negotiation table since Trump was elected as President, and that they have been conducting a lot of diplomacy, a RN victory in the French presidental elections will change the dynamic in Europe a lot in Russia's favour.
I suspect this will turn out to be a new thirty years war, hopefully counting from 2014, and that it might end with a new security architecture for Europe.
I’m not sure what diplomatic means have been attempted. All solutions at present seem to amount to an escalation of the war or accepting we will fight to the last Ukrainian, given the country’s population has halved, and half of those left are pensioners, and they appear to have lost a generation of young men, it isn’t at all clear to me what ‘victory’ would look like. I can’t see how this can go on for another 15 years. A diplomatic solution to the Iran war also looks beyond us too. Ukraine was recently seeking to merge these two wars. I think his point about comparing our situation to that before WW1 was that blocks of alliances forced hands when push came to shove, hands that would rather have not gone to war. But everyone seems to believe that Russia will do one of two things, win in Ukraine and then take over Europe, which seems absurd to me, or suffer defeat while never using its nuclear weapons. So, we can continue to assist Ukraine in bombing Russian cities and even their nuclear warning systems and Russia will not see this as either escalation or existential. It would seem to me we can’t have it both ways. Either Russia is an irrational threat that must be stopped at all costs, then it seems to me nuclear war is inevitable. Or we need to start negotiations. Sanctions and proxy war have achieved a land locked Ukraine that will never recover, as far as I can see. Someone explain to me how this war ends, because I don’t see it. Our refusal to even contemplate diplomacy terrifies me. As the author says, we talked with the Soviet Union throughout most of the Cold War. And they literally wanted the end of the west. How was it rational to use diplomacy then, but irrational to use it now?
Would you remind us what exactly happened in ’91: did the Soviet Union dissolve because the US had such wonderful talks with them, or did it collapse under immense internal and external pressure? The real end of the war involves immense and absolute financial and political pressure on Russia and any of its allies, as well as supporting Ukraine militarily to the fullest extent. If the West got its shit together (yes, the support has been very real but not nearly as complete, fast and substantial as it could’ve been), the war would be over fairly quickly (especially assuming Russia is a rational actor, which you do). And please don’t start another argument over how much the West has already helped, etc., etc.; we all know that with the US war machine really behind it, there would be no war by now.Now, say we did negotiate with Russia, make concessions, reach agreements, lift sanctions, etc. The West has done this a couple of times in the last 40-odd years, and every single time, Russia has started a new unprovoked conflict a few years down the line. Your “diplomatic” solution to the war means a sure-fire continuation of war in another region bordering Russia, destroying yet another country or countries (and their people). Would you care to explain how this is preferable to trying to end this war while preventing future conflicts by not making concessions and allowing Russia to recuperate (at least not as quickly) for the next one?
What seems most absurd to me is that you don’t address, for a moment, the fact that the war has no rational reason, no actual provocation, and no real claims. For Russia, this is a land-grab (which is looking less and less probable now), but for the most part, war for war’s sake (without war, Russia has no real way of asserting its non-existent power in the world nor explaining its rampant poverty to its own people). You cannot make lasting peace with someone whose goal is either world-domination or constant war. It’s clear that such a war-mongering force will not be stopped by peace talks: why would it, and what would it get out of that? Since there was no real reason for attacking Ukraine, why would Russia not attack the rest of Eastern Europe and continue further in the future?
The main question here is: why are you so hell-bent on negotiating with Hitler? What happened when the British negotiated back then? (Camilla made a poignant reference to “The Remains of the Day”; may I suggest a re-read?) Did he stop exterminating the Jewish people and conquering Europe?
So, presumably you would recommend the same policy for all such states. That we should behave identically to Israel since it is currently at war with virtually every bordering nation and clearly is in a state of constant war. And the US has been in near constant war since its inception. I believe we were incredibly lucky with the collapse of the Soviet Union. There was no reason at all to believe it would collapse without turning to nuclear weapons, and many reasons why it could have done so. Assuming the same thing will happen again appears foolhardy to me. I don’t see Russia collapsing economically, if anything the opposite appears to be the case. I do believe Russia believes it is facing an existential threat from the west, not least since we constantly tell it that is the case. I don’t remember the nations it has constantly attacked over the last 40 years. Do you mean Iraq, Iran, Libya, Syria, Yemen, Venezuela? Or was that someone else? The work of fiction this book seeks to remind us of is Dr Strangelove. Where the world spins out of control and comes to an end. But even in that world there was direct communication between the adversaries. Something that doesn’t exist today. And from reading the comments here, people are clearly delighted that no such communication exists. Ukraine reconfirms what was obvious since Vietnam, Afghanistan (twice), Iraq - that war can destroy a country, but conquering it is impossible, regardless of how powerful the invading force. If your hope is that Russia will collapse in the same way the USSR did, I can see no possibility of that happening. It looks to me like wishful thinking in the extreme while betting the survival of the whole of humanity on that wish.
Trevor wrote: "So, presumably you would recommend the same policy for all such states. That we should behave identically to Israel since it is currently at war with virtually every bordering nation and clearly is..."You’re proposing a world order where any nuclear power can (and thus should, because why wouldn’t it then?) attack and kill as much as it wants without any real consequences, because you personally don’t believe any consequence (besides appeasement) can actually deter them. Yes, I think that if Israel or the US (or any state, for that matter) has a long-standing history of attacking neighbouring countries just for the sake of attacking them, occupying their land and killing their people without any provocation whatsoever, they should be isolated internationally. It’s also curious that you think it is possible to negotiate with a state that consistently breaks every international rule, law, and treaty it has signed whenever it suits it. What would such negotiations yield? If Russia were to promise to stop the war in Ukraine, why would it actually do so (there is so much past precedent showing that it won’t keep its promises) or at least not restart fighting in the future (after rebuilding its military)? What does the West gain from agreeing to the terms of a war-mongering state when that state won’t keep its end of the deal? You’re being willfully ignorant here. You want a world where everyone plays by Russia’s rules while they play by none.
This thread also makes it painfully clear that you have a horribly superficial knowledge of Russian conflict history. Take a closer look at their war in Moldova and especially all the conflicts in Georgia (not to forget Chechnya). It goes: 1) Russia creates and funds some separatist movement; 2) Russia supplies them with weapons and soldiers; 3) “the separatist movement” conquers land, sets up their own fake state and destabilises the sovereign country. All of these conflicts have gone hand in hand with Western diplomatic efforts to ensure the scenario wouldn’t repeat. Yet, it always has, thanks to voices (yours, my dear fellow) calling for reestablishing economic and political ties with Russia, which then uses those benefits to strengthen its economy and its military and launches another attack.
I suggest you read up before commenting further. No need to keep on your Kremlin-trolling. <3
Trevor wrote: "I’m not sure what diplomatic means have been attempted. All solutions at present seem to amount to an escalation of the war or accepting we will fight to the last Ukrainian, given the country’s pop..."President Macron and Olaf Scholtz while chancellor of Germany both talked directly to Putin, there have been quite a few prisoner exchanges as well, several mediated through one of the Gulf states and once I think by Türkiyë. There are direct diplomatic contact but neither Russia nor Ukraine is ready for peace negotiations judging by their public statements, things will have to get worse for one side or the other first, or some other change will have to occur.
The war is de facto existential for Putin, but I don't see how nuclear weapons could bring him closer to victory, partly because they haven't been used in anger since 1945 no nuclear power knows how any other state might react. What would China or India do? Using a nuclear weapon is just a risk in every way, and why destroy a European capital if Russia can work perfectly well with certain political parties might might either come to power or gum up the political process and so limit or prevent further assistance to Ukraine?
Possibly there is something of a block effect too, we do not know quite what influence China is having over Russia now, quite possibly they are having a restraining influence. They have do far held back on selling munitions to Russia.
Ukraine is not land locked. Russia was forced to withdraw from right bank Kherson in 2022 and the coast line west of Kherson including the ports of Odesa and Mikolaiv have continuously been in Ukrainian hands.
Personally I don't see a way out of this without some kind of regime change. But in toppling Russia, our problems may merely be beginning...
Insofar a kind of plan must be in place for if or when the regime falls.