This doesn’t give a lot of information about why Putin is insecure or vulnerable to being deposed, which is key to your argument for escalation. It’s plausible that in the resulting scenario, the majority of people will resignly accept the regime and its security forces. It’s unclear what internal forces exist that would act against Putin or what incentive they would have.
In LessWrong, a user brought up comparisons with other despostic regimes which faced failure, in Iraq and North Korea (who both endured great impoverishment postwar). The leaders in those states sat in the failure comfortably. Your reply seemed vague.
Why would a response to a massive invasion of cities, be similar to enemy forces reacquiring territory to their prewar border? If defeat in Ukraine was existential, wouldn’t we see evidence of this sentiment already—instead of massive waves of fleeing men?
Last spring, I predicted that once the loss of occupied territory loomed, he would annex what he controlled and start talking about nuclear defense of Russia’s new borders – and here we are.
The “labels” (“Finland”, “Libya”,...) seem confusing , they reference/suggest implications that seem complex and don’t clarify thinking:
In a “simmering war”, conditional on your view that the use of nukes are possible, we should expect a continued chance of nuclear war.
I’m confused how “Kosovo” is a good analogy to an end state of Russian success. Also, “Afghanistan” seems better than “Vietnam” for a Russian withdrawal.
It’s unclear why these labels or any labels were chosen, and it’s plausible they are evidence of confused reasoning, which reduces credibility.
China would also be targeted even in a US-Russia war, to prevent it from emerging as the strongest post-war economy. My guess is that such a strategy is in force today as well, given the frosty state of Sino-US relations.
It’s doubtful why you believe this. Biden and command aren’t lon Biden and command would need to sign-off on the most gratuitous murder in human history for speculative reasons. Your target list is literally from 1956, when the US had a very different perspective and worldview.
Also, China has nukes now specifically for a second strike. The US does not expect China to be content with hundreds of millions dead and maimed for no reason.
As ISW wrote in May: “The Kremlin could threaten to use nuclear weapons against a Ukrainian counteroffensive into annexed territory to deter the ongoing Western military aid that would enable such a counteroffensive
This doesn’t give a lot of information about why Putin is insecure or vulnerable to being deposed, which is key to your argument for escalation. It’s plausible that in the resulting scenario, the majority of people will resignly accept the regime and its security forces. It’s unclear what internal forces exist that would act against Putin or what incentive they would have.
In LessWrong, a user brought up comparisons with other despostic regimes which faced failure, in Iraq and North Korea (who both endured great impoverishment postwar). The leaders in those states sat in the failure comfortably. Your reply seemed vague.
Why would a response to a massive invasion of cities, be similar to enemy forces reacquiring territory to their prewar border? If defeat in Ukraine was existential, wouldn’t we see evidence of this sentiment already—instead of massive waves of fleeing men?
That outcome doesn’t seem evidence of insight, the ISW made a similar one that fits their narrative about Russian posturing[1].
The “labels” (“Finland”, “Libya”,...) seem confusing , they reference/suggest implications that seem complex and don’t clarify thinking:
In a “simmering war”, conditional on your view that the use of nukes are possible, we should expect a continued chance of nuclear war.
I’m confused how “Kosovo” is a good analogy to an end state of Russian success. Also, “Afghanistan” seems better than “Vietnam” for a Russian withdrawal.
It’s unclear why these labels or any labels were chosen, and it’s plausible they are evidence of confused reasoning, which reduces credibility.
It’s doubtful why you believe this.
Biden and command aren’t lonBiden and command would need to sign-off on the most gratuitous murder in human history for speculative reasons. Your target list is literally from 1956, when the US had a very different perspective and worldview.Also, China has nukes now specifically for a second strike. The US does not expect China to be content with hundreds of millions dead and maimed for no reason.
As ISW wrote in May: “The Kremlin could threaten to use nuclear weapons against a Ukrainian counteroffensive into annexed territory to deter the ongoing Western military aid that would enable such a counteroffensive