If you look at Russian-language Pravda (using Google translate), the war rhetoric is at about 3.
Top stories in Russian for home consumption:
The United States authorities are conducting “one of the largest informational special operations in history” against Russia, spreading statements about possible “military aggression” against Ukraine.
Political scientist: the probability of a military conflict between Russia and Ukraine is extremely low
(Washington’s dial for war rhetoric only goes up to 10, where it is now.)
His argument is that while Russia may want a constant “simmer” to capitalize on Ukrainian anxiety, fear, and exhaustion, the US and allies are deliberately raising the tension to a fever pitch to effectively demonstrate that Putin is bluffing (which will presumably end the standoff sooner than Putin wants).
NATO countries have nothing to lose by making these dire warnings. Putin can either prove NATO right by invading or he can prove NATO wrong by not invading which would be a NATO success.
How so? If Putin wants to make them look like the warmongers, he can prove them wrong and not invade. How does stating “we see what you are doing” make him more likely to make the stupid play? Because I find it hard to believe that he’ll lose one whit of power in Russia if he doesn’t invade.
How on earth would that make the US look like a warmonger?
The US will claim will claim that Russia backed down due to their pressure. I say the US, because other than the UK, the rest of NATO would prefer to negotiate quietly.
I raised the question of how well or poorly Ukraine would do earlier in the thread, and the possible historical comparisons. I suspect the difference is likely to be something like the difference between how Nazi Germany did against Poland (a Ukraine without weapons from the west) vs. how Nazi Germany did against France (a Ukraine with weapons from the west). In the end it won’t make much of a difference.
If I were to make a prediction about what a scenario would look like:
If Putin is actually crazy enough to try to take all of Ukraine: That would probably play out like the US vs Iraq 2003, but without one of the opposing armies deciding it would rather drop its uniforms and go home. So, a one-sided maneuver war, kind of like the Nazi invasion of Russia. So, bloody, but Ukraine doesn’t have the equivalent to the east to retreat to. A long term resistance to this occupation in the form of a low-intensity conflict is pretty probable, though. I really don’t think that he thinks this is do-able, he’d need at least 2-3X the forces he currently has to believably counter the Ukrainian reserves, if they can all be armed and trained.
If Putin wants to have land access to the Crimea now, and maybe wants to claim further coastal Ukraine to limit their naval access: That’s a mess, but he probably has sufficient forces to make that happen. He might face a long-term insurgency, but it would be hard to predict how strong or persistent that would be.
If Putin just wants to take the Donbass provinces for the time being, and would be satisfied with that: Oh, it’s a done deal. He can just march in and claim it, and wait till later to do more if he has further goals. He’s in an actual shooting war for what he already de facto has, though. I’m not sure that justifies the build up and expense of this deployment and making their involvement there official.
So, I’m still thinking it’s either option #2 above, or he honestly figured he needed to train folks, so why not train them there at the moment. If nothing else, he would get some notoriety and possibly get some concessions while he was making an expenditure he needed to make anyway.
But then again, I’m not him, and his demands in recent negotiations seem bizarre to me for anyone actually trying to gain something concrete.
I think Ukraine would surrender quite quickly if it looked like there would be a lot of civilian casualties. They are not run by a leader like Saddam Hussain.
Agreed that his demands seem bizarre. Putin’s demands seem to be based on the premise that there is some kind of threat that NATO plans to invade Russia. The next step in that line of thinking seems to be that a Ukraine in NATO would provide NATO with a better staging ground for said invasion. Of course this all ignores the fact that NATO has no interest in invading Russia, so the whole idea is of trying to defend against a NATO invasion is ridiculous.
This is ridiculous, and frankly smacks of war propaganda being spouted by Russian mouthpieces. Russia has always claimed that they have no intention of invading. Backing down would make them look truthful and responsible.
The reason Russia isn’t backing down is simple: they always intended to invade Ukraine. They thought there’d be no serious blowback. They floated some fake diplomacy to see if they could squeeze even more mileage out of the situation.
They mobilized 150,000 troops. That’s more than half of all their BTGs. You don’t buy a dinner that expensive if you’re just planning to put in the tip. It was always going to be an invasion.
It’s all just rationalization. Putin wants to take Ukraine purely for the domestic prestige of saying “it’s ours and I got it back for us.”
He is concerned about Ukraine joining NATO, not because of any legit concern about invasion, but because:
Ukraine membership in NATO would thwart Russian plans to invade it
Ukraine membership in NATO would be humiliating for Russia.
Putin is basically Trump, if Trump had come up through the CIA instead of via real estate fraud. He’s driven by burnishing his own image with nationalistic grievance politics. He’s not a smart man except in the way that corrupt dictators are smart about corrupt dictating. Regularly paints himself into corners and blames others for trapping him.
There’s no 11-dimensional chess behind this. Putin wants to make himself look bigger, mainly to a domestic audience. Diplomacy was never going to achieve that. So he wants Ukraine, and he’ll have at least half of it this time next week. The US and the West have failed to see this for the simple, straightforward, and unstoppable thing that it is.
I see both Russian propaganda and American propaganda.
However, most Americans don’t even seem to register that there is such a thing as American military propaganda.
You’d think that after the WMD debacle and the failures in Iraq and Afghanistan, and a long history of lies going back to Vietnam, Americans would be a little more cautious about believing everything they are told. But apparently the Pentagon still speaks God’s Own Truth.
Just listen to all this crap about an invasion in a few days and withdrawing embassy personnel, etc.
Meanwhile Ukraine is saying, ‘If you really think they’re going to invade in few days, perhaps you could share some your intelligence with us, because we don’t know anything about it’.
As an analysis from the Ukraine Center for Defense Strategies said two days ago:
Let us not forget that we are in a state of hybrid warfare, in which information narratives are part of an attack or defense.
At present, the accumulated forces on the border are insufficient for a large-scale operation aimed at capturing all or a significant part of Ukraine. Therefore, predictions about the probability of such scenarios in the near future cannot be confirmed.
Moreover, we believe that such scenarios are unlikely in the foreseeable future…
I am no defense analyst but this sounds like Ukraine sticking its head in the sand. 130,000 Russian troops “are insufficient to capture even a significant part of Ukraine?”
I’m not saying Ukraine’s security analysis is necessarily wrong, but Ukraine certainly has an economic incentive to downplay the threat so all their foreign investors don’t flee the country en masse.
Most people have more trouble seeing their own nation’s propaganda than that of another nation. That, and a lot of Americans have been more or less brainwashed that the US is always right, always the greatest, etc.
Please tell me you are not that naïve. We are 6 months removed from the Kabuli capitulation and most here have forgotten that the official US position until the almost the moment Taliban were sightseeing in Kabuls parks was that the Afghan “Government” wouldn’t fall.
Really? Russia took Crimea with 20-30K troops. It was a different scenario, but that seems pretty significant, to me. I don’t believe what the US or Russia says at face value, why would I believe that’s a well thought out position?
Um… you still haven’t realised that most of the population of Crimea is ethnically and culturally Russian, and strongly wants to be part of Russia, not Ukraine?
Only 15% of the population of Crimea is Ukrainian. Crimea has been ruled by Russia since it was conquered from Ottoman Turkish Empire in the 18th century, and Sevastopol has been a major Russian naval base since the 18th century.