31–40 of 123 posts
Another possible outcome, not present on the OP's state chart, is "USSR": Russia collapses for internal reasons.
The US media therefore gives the impression that it's a lot more likely than it actually is.
See also: sanctions induced economic collapse within 6 months.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Or “Russian oligarchs put plutonium in Putin’s coffee”. How long will the rich and poor of Russia put up with the cost of this war?
I think it's more likely that he retires to the country. Precedent matters if you may be on the other end of it in months/years. Also retirement to the country is not forever, which again is useful in political struggles to come.
I agree with most of the post/diagram, except the last step. There's a joke that appeared early this year: a Russian had an accident and fell into a coma before the war, and just wakes up. He's asking for news, and the nurse tells him that it's bad: they're in a war with NATO, and they already lost 60k people, 2000 tanks and 500 planes. "And NATO?", he asks. "What are their losses?". The nurse answers: "Ah, NATO hasn…
That's a truly realpolitik analysis, but it still may leave Putin in great danger. The US has apparently warned Putin of the retaliation that awaits if he goes nuclear. Sinking the black sea fleet has been mentioned as a possibility. That means that all the sailors on those ships are sitting ducks, to be annihilated in their thousands in seconds, should Putin decide to go nuclear. Surely, even in Russia, the blowback…
The only question really should be whether Putin dare to nuke Ukraine, if he indeed go there, end of story.
There's a lot of rhetoric and bluff. I don't believe for a second that Nato would directly strike Russia if Russia used tactical nukes in Ukraine. That would indeed be a declaration of all out war against a cornered country which only remaining strength at the moment is its nuke stockpile, I.e. it would be madness and Armageddon would indeed have been triggered by Nato, not Russia. Rather, the West should deny Russia…
Even if the war ends, russia would stay isolated on the world scene. But they must be punished for what they did, if only to get China to not make it any worse.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
First thing to do when threats are made is to decide whether they are credible. The sinking of the Black Sea Fleet would be a huge escalation and a declaration of war, not to mention not a smart thing to announce your plan in advance. To me it's the same as when Russia makes big threats. It's a war of words but with no plan for actual action. Edit: It seems to me that the US are trying to corner Russia into escalatio…
The west would generally need to pursue a severe escalation in response to a nuclear threat otherwise it sets a terrible precedent. I think something on that scale, but well below a nuclear response, is likely.
Russia is not threatening Nato.
There are talks that Russia might use tactical nukes in Ukraine. I don't know how likely that is and that would indeed be a bad precedent, but are you going to declare war on Russia over that? That does not seem sensible.
I don't know what game the US are playing, and have been playing for years now (and I suspect it is partly anti-China) but it is dangerous, as dangerous as Russia's game.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That's a truly realpolitik analysis, but it still may leave Putin in great danger. The US has apparently warned Putin of the retaliation that awaits if he goes nuclear. Sinking the black sea fleet has been mentioned as a possibility. That means that all the sailors on those ships are sitting ducks, to be annihilated in their thousands in seconds, should Putin decide to go nuclear. Surely, even in Russia, the blowback…
First thing to do when threats are made is to decide whether they are credible. The sinking of the Black Sea Fleet would be a huge escalation and a declaration of war, not to mention not a smart thing to announce your plan in advance. To me it's the same as when Russia makes big threats. It's a war of words but with no plan for actual action. Edit: It seems to me that the US are trying to corner Russia into escalatio…
Another possible outcome, not present on the OP's state chart, is "USSR": Russia collapses for internal reasons.
https://www.thedailybeast.com/volodymyr-zelensky-warns-of-li...
https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/20034143/chilling-signs-putin-...
Yet another one: https://www.pravda.com.ua/eng/news/2022/10/8/7370930/
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> I don't believe for a second that Nato would directly strike Russia if Russia used tactical nukes in Ukraine. Almost no one is saying that’s the immediate consequence. But General Petraeus already commented how the response would be a collective NATO involvement sinking the Russian Black Sea fleet and bombardment of Russian positions in Ukraine. It’s anyone’s guess how Russia then responds to THAT, then how we resp…
Isn't " sinking the Russian Black Sea fleet " directly striking Russia? To me this sort of threat is bluff (or crazy talk by individuals in the military, it happened before) because that'd be declaring war and would corner Russia. Russia is relatively weak, yes, and no match to the US or Nato, but it isn't Iraq, either.
Under certain viewpoints it is the difference between attacking the US command in Iraq and striking troups in New York.
The black fleet is stationed on annexed land as of the view of most UN member states. An attack on troups stationed on foreign soil is not the same as an attack on troups stationed e.g. in the capital of an country. The black fleet are military targets on the soil/waters of an invaded country in an attack war. This is the status most foreign ministries would tell you the black fleet has currently.
The question now is: What are the consequences of doing nothing, should Russia deploy tactical nukes?
Most analysts would say there are bigger consequences to doing nothing than to doing something of limited scale unless your goal is normalizing nuke deployment (very bad idea).
So where would you retaliate instead?
Another possible outcome, not present on the OP's state chart, is "USSR": Russia collapses for internal reasons.
Or “Russian oligarchs put plutonium in Putin’s coffee”. How long will the rich and poor of Russia put up with the cost of this war?
Saying that about the US president who was bankrolling a trillion dollars-plus invasion of Iraq and Afghanistan would have put one in jail, interesting to see that when applied to another country is now perfectly ok. Relevant Whitest Kids U' Know sketch [1]
Another possible outcome, not present on the OP's state chart, is "USSR": Russia collapses for internal reasons.
But there are many many alternatives before either of those two, so I imagine the vast majority are hoping against hope something else plays out, and they don’t have to decide between a risky coup attempt and certain nuclear annihilation.