[quote AgnesWestern]@RedToothBrush
Why does he say it’ll be a Third World War of peace talks fail? Surely it’ll only be a Third World War if more countries get involved in a military sense? I don’t quite understand. Sorry if I’m missing something here.[/quote]
Because of the theory that numerous observers are saying about seeing the west as weak or because he feels he can escalate each time without consequence. He is using a system which is cyclic.
And that at some point that WILL require intervention because he will eventually miscalculate the West's response and the West will feel they have to intervene. Each cycle the stakes get raised.
The idea here, that some of the smaller Eastern NATO countries fear, is that the rest of NATO will not fulfil Article 5 if they are attacked. Putin may also believe this. I can imagine there being a certain section of the British public and American public not wanting to get involved...
Zelensky is by no means alone in this view that unless we act to stop Putin now, he will stop, regroup and then go again in some way. Its part of a pattern which we repeatedly have ignored because of our squimishness and reluctance to go to war because it jeapordises our safe little lives.
Its what many in Eastern Europe and the Baltics are saying. Its also some senior British Military are on record as saying. Its definitely a course of discussion within Washington.
Maybe this thread might give a sense of this as a concept:
David Rothkopf @djrothkopf
To those who have called for an "off-ramp" for Putin, I have just one question. Don't you feel ashamed of yourselves? When you look at what is happening in Mariupol, where citizens are being rounded up and kidnapped to Russia, put in camps and forcibly relocated?
Or when you see the rest of the residents of that city suffering without food and water? Or a theater full of mothers and children being bombed? When you hear that the WHO says 44 hospitals and health facilities have been attacked? When you see nuclear facilities being shelled?
Thermobaric weapons being launched? When you see the devastation in city after city where residential neighborhoods are being turned to rubble, city centers into smoldering ghost towns? Why are we obligated to provide Putin with anything other than defeat?
Putin started this carnage without justification. He alone has made the decision to escalate. He has serially violated international laws and committed war crimes and crimes against humanity. He has lied about the threat posed by Ukraine and by NATO and the US.
At no point...at no point...has he responded rationally or given the slightest hint that he had any interest in serious negotiations. He has responded to every good faith effort to end this war with further brutality.
Why would anyone think the world owed Vladimir Putin anything other than prosecution and conviction? What could possibly make anyone think he can be reasoned with? Why would you assume a man who started a war for no reason would need a reason to end it?
I understand the fear of escalation. I understand the concern about further atrocities, further suffering for the people of Ukraine. But thus far the only thing that has spared Ukraine even greater devastation was the victories of Ukrainian soldiers on the battlefield.
Thus far, the only reasoning that has kept Putin from seizing Kyiv and destroying it as he has cities in the East is that provided courtesy of western weapons and the resourcefulness and skill of Ukraine's military.
If you want Putin to withdraw, make him withdraw. Continue to squeeze his economy. Continue to provide Ukraine with the military support it needs. There were only ever going to be two ways Putin would leave Ukraine--following a victory and the installation of a puppet regime...
...or following a defeat. We all should want this war to be over as soon as possible. We all should want the suffering of the Ukrainian people to end and the rebuilding of their country to begin. I understand why the idea of off-ramps are so appealing.
But they are rational ideas being offered to placate the madness of a war criminal. Putin is not the master strategist he was made out to be. He is certainly not the savvy statesman Mike Pompeo once described him as.
Putin is a bully and a sociopath. He thrives on the weaknesses of others. He thrives on their rationality and the fact that they are constrained by rules or inclined toward social norms like telling the truth or caring for other humans that mean absolutely nothing to him.
Yes, by all means, seek peace. But recognize that what will move us closer to a cease fire, an end to these horrors, is not offering up a diplomatic gift basket to a monster. He will negotiate seriously when he realizes the cost of this war is too great...
...when the possibility of his defeat is made real to him. The good news is that thanks to the strength of Ukraine's gov't, military & its people, that reality is being made more clear every day. Pres. Zelenskyy & his government have pursued peace diligently but realistically.
They have communicated that they are willing to listen to Russian proposals. But not only have they found those proposals to be outrageous, they have found that the negotiations are only being used as cover while further escalations and further wanton brutality takes place.
Finally, for those who seek a fig leaf, to provide some way for Putin to think he has won, know that his metrics and yours are different. And that time & time again, when he has violated int'l law, committed atrocities, slaughtered innocents, the world did provide him off-ramps.
It provided him with "settlements" and agreements signed at long negotiating tables. And each and every time...not some times...every time...he violated those agreements. And every time the world enabled him to emerge stronger, he used that strength to commit new crimes.
Chechnya was followed by Syria, Georgia was followed by Crimea. Look at the pictures of Grozny or Aleppo. Compare them to Kharkiv & Mariupol. Why do they look so similar? Because Putin sees every off-ramp provided to him by the world as an entrance on the road to his next target.
We must, after 2 decades, learn the lessons Putin has taken such pains to teach us. There are two choices. Either we stop him this time or he will do this again. Either he pays a price for these crimes greater than any he has known before or we will be right back here again soon.
It is possible to love peace and realize that the only lasting peace will come from the defeat of your enemy. That must be the case here. And if the people of Ukraine choose to reach a ceasefire (and we must support their decisions, they are the ones fighting and dying)...
...then it behooves the rest of the world to ensure that Putin for the rest of his life pays a high price for the crimes he has committed in Ukraine and before.
I do echo this. Why anyone thinks that someone will stop if they think war crimes are legitimate if, at some point in the future, they see what they perceive as an opportunity to gain more power?
And I ask, if Putin does see this as a war crucial to the survival of Russia (which in his head it is suggested he does), would he make peace with the intention of it being a permenant thing?
To him peace agreements have repeatedly been strategic moves merely to regroup for a future aggressive military attack. He does not make peace in good faith, this is kind of the point.
If thats the case, do we continue to let Putin push? At what point is our red line?
Meanwhile Ukraine are recognising Putin is an existential threat and its Putin's desire to end their nation. They don't think he is just going to change his mind about this.
Zelensky can't and won't make peace whilst he thinks that remains and he will seek assurances that Putin won't like. Zelensky has to get others to see things through this lens. I do think its a reasonable one tbf too.
Kamil Galeev has a whole thread on how Western pursuit of descalation as a goal is utterly flawed:
twitter.com/kamilkazani/status/1504103672019513345
He outlines the difference between goal- oriented and the system-oriented thinking.
Galeev's key point is that:
Wars are not launched for military goals. They are launched for political goals.
Kamil Galeev @kamilkazani
For example if you want to deescalate the war in Ukraine, what would your best strategy be? Goal-oriented people understand that the only person who could stop the war immediately is Putin himself. Thus they suggest focusing on negotiations with him and persuading him to back off
Sounds reasonable. And yet, this approach ignores the factor of human will. And goal-oriented people lowkey admit it. For example, when justifying Putin's actions they often point out that it was wrong for the West to "provoke a bear". They strip the other side of any agency
That's exactly the problem with the goal-oriented approach. This line of reasoning when applied to the human conflicts completely ignores the agency. Russia is not a "bear", China is not a "dragon", the same way the US is not an "eagle". Their policies are designed by humans
Paradox of the goal-oriented approach. Very often when you want to stop a dangerous situation, you assume you need to negotiate with the only person who has the power to stop it immediately. Unfortunately, that only person who can stop it, is usually the one who manufactured it
Humans have agency and agency works both ways. They can choose to deescalate but they can also choose to escalate. Acting on assumption that everyone around you wants peace and partnership is insane. To make a correct choice you need to figure out which choice the other side made
In other words: Putin CHOSE WAR. Why would he therefore do a 180 and decide that War = Bad?
Galeev continues
The constant cycle of Putin's policy has been:
1. Manufacture a conflict
2. Escalate, exacerbate
3. Come out as the saviour, collect payout
4. Scale up
So far it has worked perfectly. Why? Because the other side never escalated it
Agency works both ways. If Putin knows the West is determined to always and ever deescalate, always seek for compromise, it means his policy is working perfectly, why change it? So he repeats and scales up. And every time you'll have to deal with larger conflict he manufactured
Putin's policy is entirely based on assumption that the West will avoid the escalation. Ergo. It was a mistake to assure him of it in the first place. Paradoxically, it may sound for goal-oriented people, it makes total sense from the perspective of a system-oriented approach
In the system-oriented paradigm it works exactly the other way around. The other side has agency, too. They are not stupid. They know you have much superior resources and the only reason they behave such recklessly is that you assured them you'll never ever use the force you have
Under the goal-oriented paradigm, the route for deescalation would be make Putin feel as safe as possible. Under the system-oriented, the other way around. After each successful cycle he scales up, so you must break the cycle.
Thus at some point we will have to break the cycle. We only get a choice in terms of what point we do this. Each cycle becomes ever more dangerous.
We are at a point where Putin is somewhat on the back foot and has limited options. Yes he could drop nukes. But in the cycle theory, we understand that those nukes are still there in the next cycle and are a bigger risk.
Its the theory of the Domestic Abuser Escalating but on a national scale. Each time the abuser says they have changed and they won't do it again. But each time the abuser learns and gets ever more devious and makes it harder for his victim whilst getting more and more violent.
Its saying that abusers are cruel and wish to hurt as much as possible, but they are also generally ultimately more cowardly than they are credited when they are finally confronted and had the shit kicked out of them and then have their means of reoffending removed.
I think there are elements of this which are valuable to understand. And elements which continue to be very frightening.
A comment I saw today was: why if Russia are happy with isolation and think they can be self sufficient, do they continue to try and repay their national debt like they have this week? Why do you repay if you see no future within the rest of the world because you are planning to nuke it?
It poses an interesting point.
And again it needs to be stressed. Putin doesn't mind war. Thats why he starts them. Because they benefit him. You have to make them not benefit him. Peace has to be on the terms of others, not him and they have to be backed with consequences that he believes will be followed through on. The West applying pressure on Zelensky to make peace is therefore fundamentally not going to work.
Talking about The Hague doesn't matter to someone who doesn't value human rights and thinks they are the weakness of the West. Why waste the effectiveness of a scorched earth policy if it works to your strategic advantage on the battle field?