Like what? I don’t see Russia lashing out with nuclear weapons because they fucked themselves and aren’t getting their way in the Ukraine. I don’t see them even openly attacking the Ukraine directly since they have to be thinking that if they are getting hammered this badly with the sanctions folks up thread were laughing and handwaving away, what’s it going to be like if they did something like that? At this point I think Putin is hoping that the Ukraine will fold (at least the eastern part) and that the price of oil will recover and eventually things will be smoothed over. It’s all wishful thinking but I don’t see a lot of paths for him to go irrational and do something monumentally stupid. His big problem is going to be continuing to spin this so that the Russian people keep buying his narrative…that’s going to be tough enough. 
I don’t think its going to end with nukes flying either but Putin could decide to stop messing around and invade Ukraine (and wherever else he has an eye on) openly. However that’s unlikely, what I don’t see is him simply backing down, effective sanctions or not.
And weren’t sanctions and lack of access to needed resources one of the main factors in Japan going to war in World War II?
[QUOTE=Disposable Hero]
And weren’t sanctions and lack of access to needed resources one of the main factors in Japan going to war in World War II?
[/QUOTE]
Oil embargo, and yeah, they were. But I don’t think this is remotely similar. Russia’s main trouble is that they get a huge percentage of their external hard capital from gas and oil, and with the Saudi’s and OPEC not ramping down production in the face of a glut in supply it’s driven the prices down to the point where it’s really hurting Russia’s necessary price point for selling their resources.
Sure, that could happen. And I doubt we would do much if Russia DID openly launch an invasion, at least militarily. Politically and economically, however there would be even more economic sanctions that would cut even harder into Russia’s economy and hurt them even more and probably a great deal of further political censure.
Personally, I don’t see the Russian’s doing it, and it’s not like they are desperate to take the Ukraine or their economy will collapse from lack of a vital strategic resource. Instead, this is all Putin waving his dick and showing his ass while telling the Russian people it’s about Russian solidarity, about protecting Russian ethnic groups from ‘fascists’, and about defying the West™, America and NATO. How long that narrative will continue to play well with the Russian people is anyone’s guess, but as the screws tighten on Russia from economic and political sanctions as well as from the large drop in price of their one resource economy it’s going to be tough to maintain that stance I think. Unless the Ukraine or at least a large part of it folds soon I think he’s going to have to face reality at some point.
The primary difference is this.
Japan in WW2 - was hurt by sanctions that prevented it from getting vital resources (particularly oil). Thought that, by going to war, it could seize those resources from others, and become self-sufficient - then deter US/Western aggression. In short, war was the answer to an ecomomic problem; it was expected tha war would “pay off” (though of course it did not).
Russia today: has engaged in various acts of aggression towards various neighbours - most notably of course, Ukraine. None of its aggressions have been to grab key resources Russia otherwise lacks - in fact, none of them have “paid off”, or could reasonably be expected to “pay off”. Its grabbed territories have been money sponges and welfare cases, not paying propositions. For Russia, war is creating economic problems (even if successful): the greater the success, the higher the price-tag.
Exactly. Even doing what they are and have been doing has created much of Russia’s economic problems or exacerbated existing problems (such as the drop in the price of oil) which wouldn’t be as sever if Russia wasn’t pushing on this. An open war where Russia comes out and actively engages with it’s military would be a double hit, since it would cost them the money and resources to do military operations (something they really can’t afford) AND a further hit on the international side (which they DEFINITELY can’t afford)…as well as the cost or rebuilding the province after they integrate it and further bad will from their neighbors, who are already concerned over this. It’s a lose/lose…which made a lot of the comments earlier in this thread all the more amusing as folks tried to spin this as some brilliant move by Putin pulling the wool over a neophyte Obama and NATO. It’s been a disaster for Russia, and it just goes further and further down the rabbit hole as time goes on.
I always thought that the best historical analogy (if one is necessary or appropriate) was with Mussolini’s Italy, pre-WW2.
Like Putin, he flouted the international powers that be in order to seize territory by force - in every case, against weak opposition (such as Albania); like Putin, he was widely lionized and admired at the time for his “successes”; like Putin, his “successes” only made his country weaker - none of the nabbed territory was economically valuable. When push came to shove, as it turns out experience in beating up Albanians did not translate into first-rank military prowess: it is hard to slug it out with the big boys on an inadequate economic base - and in real terms, as it turns out, the economy of Russia is right now nore or less the same size as that of Italy.
Yeah, that’s a pretty good historical analogy. I hadn’t thought of it, but it works fairly well. Hopefully Putin will learn some lessons before he’s strung up (shirtless no doubt) by an angry crowd of Russians next to his prize bear…
If Russia did invade Ukraine, it would be a Czechoslovakia moment. Not in terms of Western capitulation, as we’ve made no promises to them. But it would probably cause us to guarantee the Baltics’ security, setting them up as Poland in this “history repeats” moment.
The Baltic states are already in NATO, aren’t they? How could we set them up more than that?? If Russia invades any of the NATO states the treaty obligations are already there to hammer them hard, and unless and until NATO collapses that’s going to be the case.
True, but there’s still symbolic importance in an official statement. Obviously, whether or not we will fight for the Baltic states is in some doubt among the citizenry of powerful NATO countries. Dictators have made miscalculations over less. Heck, remember how April Glaspie’s statement that we have no interest in Arab-Arab disputes was misinterpreted by Saddam? Treaties are meaningless in the real world except to the extent that both parties see an interest in upholding them. Ukraine may not be an ally, but they did agree to get rid of their nukes on the promise that their borders would be guaranteed. Russia completely violated that agreement and the West’s power and willingness to guarantee Ukraine’s borders has been lame. Russia could easily assume that we will also roll over if they do the same to the Baltics. If a definitive statement is issued by all NATO signatories, then it just comes down to whether Putin thinks we are bluffing.
Well, if we are talking about the Ukraine, he kind of knows we aren’t…after all, we have already tossed Russia out of the G8 AND we have put forth and maintain sanctions. He can’t think that going whole hog is going to cut him or Russia additional slack at this point.
If you are talking about the Baltic nations, then that’s a whole 'nother kettle of fish, since the NATO treaties come into play directly. No matter what fantasy land Putin is residing on these days (one where the price of oil no doubt bounces back and the West gives up on it’s sanctions and tells Russia, sure, take the Ukraine…we don’t mind! :p), he can’t possibly think that attacking a NATO member would go unanswered.
I agree. But he might try what he’s doing in Ukraine. Which would result in Estonia invoking Article 5. At that point, we need to send forces to bolster Estonia.
The North Atlantic Treaty is a pretty official statement.
I’m amazed by how many people seem to think a treaty is just a loose guideline.
That may be because they’re familiar with the US’s history of honoring treaties.
Treaties are only honored when it’s advantageous to honor them. That’s why it’s important to say that we intend to honor our treaty.
Actually, Obama already did that, but it would be nice if France and Germany would join in.
Other countries honour treaties even if they are not advantageous.
But then, in the US they don’t even know how to spell the word…
Which international treaties are you specifically talking about?
So your position is that Germany and France and Italy are onboard with us if the Baltics invoke Article 5? I sure hope you’re right if that’s what you are implying.
I believe his main point is to do a gratuitous slam against the US while exaggerating the treaty records of other countries to make it seem like it’s only the US who never honors treaties while ignoring your point that several of the NATO countries citizens at least have expressed disinterest in honoring that treaty if it means sending troops to protect OTHER NATO members (of course, they are most likely all for the other nations coming to their aid, even if it’s the back stabbing and evil US).
Reported for Spam.