Support NeoGAF

[winjer]

He doesn't know what the Russian plans are, he's speculating. He might be echoing excuses they have used and thinking those are the Russian mindset then going off that incorrectly to make his alarmist assumptions. The top comment on the video from a self identified Russian citizen even mentions that these reasons he espouses aren't the rationale.

Everyone knows what the Russians plans are. It's the same plans they always had. To invade their neighbors.

 

[Kraz]

Everyone knows what the Russians plans are. It's the same plans they always had. To invade their neighbors.

He was trying to alarm with a single specific grand strategic plan around a primary unquestioned assumption that Russia feels unsafe(his word and seemingly attempted to justify in his analysis), which is incorrect.

 

[Darius87]

No, he doesn't. He is explaining the Russian mindset.
And in this he is right, Russia has been using the excuse of "existencial threat" for centuries, as a way to justify expanding and invading their neighbors.
He is also very clear, that in the last 20 years, Russia has done 8 invasions of it's neighbors. And if the Ukrainian invasion is successful, then next it will be Poland. This is why we must NOT allow Russia no win this war.

it's another propaganda putin using to justify war, the russians who believes this believes in anything putin says, the only existencial threat is for putin not russia, more rational russians don't believe any existencia threats it's mostly for putin loyalists and dedushka's and babushka's.

 

[winjer]

it's another propaganda putin using to justify war, the russians who believes this believes in anything putin says, the only existencial threat is for putin not russia, more rational russians don't believe any existencia threats it's mostly for putin loyalists and dedushka's and babushka's.

Of course it's propaganda. But it's how the Russian leadership think.
And if you knew your history, you would know Russia has been using this same excuse since Peter I. This mindset of the Russian leadership has been a constant.
This is something that the west has been ignoring in the last few decades. The west has to understand that Russia ill never stop invading their neighbors.
The biggest mistake the west has done, was to ignore all the invasions Russia has done in the last 3 decades. Constantly trying some appeasement with Russia, to achieve war. But ignoring that this only encouraged Russia to continue to invade more countries.

 

[Darius87]

Of course it's propaganda. But it's how the Russian leadership think.
And if you knew your history, you would know Russia has been using this same excuse since Peter I. This mindset of the Russian leadership has been a constant.
This is something that the west has been ignoring in the last few decades. The west has to understand that Russia ill never stop invading their neighbors.
The biggest mistake the west has done, was to ignore all the invasions Russia has done in the last 3 decades. Constantly trying some appeasement with Russia, to achieve war. But ignoring that this only encouraged Russia to continue to invade more countries.

Russian leadership does not equal russia.

 

[Cyberpunkd]

Russian leadership does not equal russia.

Russian leadership is a perfect mirror into the Russian soul - crude and brutal.

 

[winjer]

Russian leadership does not equal russia.

Russian leadership leads Russia. And the Russians have little saying in what the Russian leadership does. Russia is not a democracy.
Russia is more like a modern feudalistic state. And most Russians are serfs.

 

[Kraz]

Russian leadership does not equal russia.

And to get to realistic plans and outcomes it's better to highlight how Russian invaders currently think of those they invade to know their motivations. It's not unsafe.

 

[Darius87]

Russian leadership is a perfect mirror into the Russian soul - crude and brutal.

no there many russians who don't support war.

Russian leadership leads Russia. And the Russians have little saying in what the Russian leadership does. Russia is not a democracy.
Russia is more like a modern feudalistic state. And most Russians are serfs.

speaking about "russia" only just as it's president/government doesn't really define russia as a country, there's land, values, culture it's people and language any changes in government doesn't reduce or destroys these things.
This "existential thread" is fear of it's presidents projected on it's people doesn't really reduce/destroys it culture/values or reduce it's lands.

 

[winjer]

no there many russians who don't support war.

speaking about "russia" only just as it's president/government doesn't really define russia as a country, there's land, values, culture it's people and language any changes in government doesn't reduce or destroys these things.
This "existential thread" is fear of it's presidents projected on it's people doesn't really reduce/destroys it culture/values or reduce it's lands.

The highly hierarchical structure of the Russian society, is still reminiscent of a feudalistic society.
If you look at Russian history, ever since they were ruled by the Mongols, has become one where the leadership maintains it's power, by instilling a sense of discord and competition between the lower strata.
This way the ruler can have the lower classes fighting each other for his favors, instead of having them fight him.
Putin also does this, by having Generals competing with each other. And by having several military branches separated and competing among each others.
On the case of the people, most will never rise to even play at the higher levels. But the ones that do, are absorbed into this machine. If they don't play this game, they get left behind or killed.

There is also a current unwritten "agreement" between the Russian people and it's leadership. Where the Russians can do what they like to, as long as not to interfere and criticize the state. So basically, a separation between the state and the Russians.
And this is where the current war, can subvert this agreement. Because now, the Russian leadership is breaking this agreement by forcing the people to do what they don't want to do.
You will notice that a lot of Russians don't care about the war, as long as it does not affect them.

And remember that Russians have 2 different words for Russians. One only for ethnic Russians, and another for people of other ethnic groups.

 

[AJUMP23]

Looks like it has come out now that the US destroyed the Nordstream Pipeline.

Seymour Hersh: How the US Took Out the Nord Stream Pipeline

The New York Times called it a “mystery,” but the United States executed a covert sea operation that was kept secret—until now

scheerpost.com

 

[funkygunther]

Looks like it has come out now that the US destroyed the Nordstream Pipeline.

Seymour Hersh: How the US Took Out the Nord Stream Pipeline

The New York Times called it a “mystery,” but the United States executed a covert sea operation that was kept secret—until now

scheerpost.com

Joe Brandon!

 

[Kraz]

Looks like it has come out now that the US destroyed the Nordstream Pipeline.

Seymour Hersh: How the US Took Out the Nord Stream Pipeline

The New York Times called it a “mystery,” but the United States executed a covert sea operation that was kept secret—until now

scheerpost.com

This seems not only unreliable but there's no reporting in it, it's straight up fiction.

 

[Liljagare]

 

[NoLootBoxDev]

Chisinau confirms that it received Russia’s plans to take control of Moldova.The Moldovan Information and Security Service has confirmed that the Moldovan side received information from Ukraine about Russia’s intentions to conduct a campaign to destabilize the situation in the country. NewsMaker.​

insightnews.media/chisin...

I do expect Ruzzia to try to destabilize all the old continent because "fuck everything". I hope they lose everything.

 

[ResurrectedContrarian]

Russian leadership is a perfect mirror into the Russian soul - crude and brutal.

This kind of attitude is baffling.

Frankly, we're not being very objective if we think Ukranians are all decent people, either, rather than yet another complex geopolitical actor with severe problems of its own all the way down into its ethically ambiguous military.

The US/West strategy of trying to create a pure victim society out of Ukraine is bizarre and just a shield for trying to keep up a proxy war with Russia. Screw that.

 

[Ironbunny]

Frankly, we're not being very objective if we think Ukranians are all decent people,

As a invidiual people yes theres differences...but as a country two could not be further apart now. Other is a literal terrorist nation and other is a country fighting against literal genocide.

The US/West strategy of trying to create a pure victim society out of Ukraine is bizarre and just a shield for trying to keep up a proxy war with Russia. Screw that.

Boohoo.

 

[ResurrectedContrarian]

As a invidiual people yes theres differences...but as a country two could not be further apart now. Other is a literal terrorist nation and other is a country fighting against literal genocide.

The main genocide is a never-ending war being rallied on by outside nations whose main interest is to keep Russia dragged into a conflict for their own gain, rather than seeking an actual resolution. I find it laughable that anyone thinks the US military/overseas operations is anything other than a cancer on the world everywhere it gets involved, like all of its past decades in the middle east which only profited from prolonging permanent instability, and now the same nonsense as it gets involved in a proxy war in Ukraine solely for its own benefit.

Boohoo.

The thing is, the boohooing is from the mindless Ukraine-flag-waivers across the West who so transparently just need some kind of a cause and some kind of conflict to rally behind. Nothing so immediately signals a falsified personality and emotional self-delusion more to me than a person in a rich Western nation far from Ukraine suddenly adopting this as their pet cause, without even the slightest sense of the kinds of suffering across the world which have nothing to do with questionable US international interventions.

 

[Cyberpunkd]

This kind of attitude is baffling.

Frankly, we're not being very objective if we think Ukranians are all decent people, either, rather than yet another complex geopolitical actor with severe problems of its own all the way down into its ethically ambiguous military.

The US/West strategy of trying to create a pure victim society out of Ukraine is bizarre and just a shield for trying to keep up a proxy war with Russia. Screw that.

Ukraine is not decent by any manner, as with Russia there are serious corruption problems, oligarchs running wild, etc. However they did not invade a neighbouring country. Also beating Russia here will take them out for minimum 20 years and allow Europe to better compete with China and US.
Enemy of my enemy is my friend and all that.

 

[sinnergy]

Chisinau confirms that it received Russia’s plans to take control of Moldova.The Moldovan Information and Security Service has confirmed that the Moldovan side received information from Ukraine about Russia’s intentions to conduct a campaign to destabilize the situation in the country. NewsMaker.​

insightnews.media/chisin...

I do expect Ruzzia to try to destabilize all the old continent because "fuck everything". I hope they lose everything.

Sounds like Russia … yeah

 

[Tams]

This kind of attitude is baffling.

Frankly, we're not being very objective if we think Ukranians are all decent people, either, rather than yet another complex geopolitical actor with severe problems of its own all the way down into its ethically ambiguous military.

The US/West strategy of trying to create a pure victim society out of Ukraine is bizarre and just a shield for trying to keep up a proxy war with Russia. Screw that.

No, but there's a very clear right and wrong in this conflict.

Perhaps there was the tiniest smidgen of justification for Russia at the time of the invasion, but after the war crimes and crimes against humanity they have committed, there is simply no doubt that Russia in the wrong.

And now that Russia have invaded, they have realised being a threat to Europe. FFS, before the invasion a lot of European countries had at least somewhat cordial relations with Russia, and that's even after an assassination and an attempted assassination in the UK, and shooting down an airliner.

 

[iamblades]

He doesn't know what the Russian plans are, he's speculating. He might be echoing excuses they have used and thinking those are the Russian mindset then going off that incorrectly to make his alarmist assumptions. The top comment on the video from a self identified Russian citizen even mentions that these reasons he espouses aren't the rationale.

You must not be familiar with the field of geostrategic analysis, and certainly not Zeihan's particular style of it. It's not about divining the current plans of any particular current leadership of a government. If you look at the long term strategic interests of a nation you can make predictions about it's behavior though, and Zeihan in particular has been predicting the Ukraine war for years, even when the mainstream opinion was that it wasn't likely because it didn't(and still doesn't) make any fucking sense from a military logistical or economic cost/benefit analysis.

This is where the grand strategy analysis comes into play, when actors are doing things that are expressly against their stated goals.

Take a less current or emotionally charged example, Nixon's opening to China. From a political, economic or military perspective, this made no sense at all. There was no US national interest in mainland China at the time, and the republicans were stridently anti-communist. But consider America's grand strategy. There are only two things that the US cares about from a grand strategy perspective, that no outside power intervenes in the western hemisphere, and that no single power controls the Eurasian landmass. What single act could further achieve that goal than furthering the sino-soviet split? A lot of US foreign policy that doesn't make sense any other way instantly snaps into focus once you start looking at it from that perspective.

Will Zeihan's level of analysis always get things right? Certainly not, there is a lot of nuance and randomness missed if you are just focusing on maps and demographics and economics. He has gotten a lot right though, and he has made no shortage of bold predictions that could look insanely foolish if he is wrong. He draws a lot of hate from subject specialists because he is a generalist and skips over much of the nuance and detail that is their life's work, but i like the clearly articulated falsifiable predictions he gives.

I also don't consider him an alarmist at all, at least from the American perspective he is the exact opposite. I can see how people in certain other countries may wish to dismiss his predictions as alarmist however.

 

[Kraz]

You must not be familiar with the field of geostrategic analysis, and certainly not Zeihan's particular style of it. It's not about divining the current plans of any particular current leadership of a government. If you look at the long term strategic interests of a nation you can make predictions about it's behavior though, and Zeihan in particular has been predicting the Ukraine war for years, even when the mainstream opinion was that it wasn't likely because it didn't(and still doesn't) make any fucking sense from a military logistical or economic cost/benefit analysis.

This is where the grand strategy analysis comes into play, when actors are doing things that are expressly against their stated goals.

Take a less current or emotionally charged example, Nixon's opening to China. From a political, economic or military perspective, this made no sense at all. There was no US national interest in mainland China at the time, and the republicans were stridently anti-communist. But consider America's grand strategy. There are only two things that the US cares about from a grand strategy perspective, that no outside power intervenes in the western hemisphere, and that no single power controls the Eurasian landmass. What single act could further achieve that goal than furthering the sino-soviet split? A lot of US foreign policy that doesn't make sense any other way instantly snaps into focus once you start looking at it from that perspective.

Will Zeihan's level of analysis always get things right? Certainly not, there is a lot of nuance and randomness missed if you are just focusing on maps and demographics and economics. He has gotten a lot right though, and he has made no shortage of bold predictions that could look insanely foolish if he is wrong. He draws a lot of hate from subject specialists because he is a generalist and skips over much of the nuance and detail that is their life's work, but i like the clearly articulated falsifiable predictions he gives.

I also don't consider him an alarmist at all, at least from the American perspective he is the exact opposite. I can see how people in certain other countries may wish to dismiss his predictions as alarmist however.

Familiar enough to know that his reasoning and conclusions from that analysis are garbage. It's not that his conclusions for conditions for nuclear use are simple fantasy alarmism, it's the "Russia don't feel safe" basis for it which you completely ignored to go off on some tangent about China and whatnot to wander away from the point. Maybe in your country the mainstream opinion was that the war was unlikely, there was articles and opinions about war happening since Crimea to justify training Ukrainian troops before this invasion. There's no shortage of grifters on youtube and their supporters ready to carry water for them over their supposed entertainment value.

This channel sounds like it flatters the watchers into thinking they know something about grand strategy.

 

[iamblades]

Familiar enough to know that his reasoning and conclusions from that analysis are garbage. It's not that his conclusions for conditions for nuclear use are simple fantasy alarmism, it's the "Russia don't feel safe" basis for it which you completely ignored to go off on some tangent about China and whatnot to wander away from the point. Maybe in your country the mainstream opinion was that the war was unlikely, there was articles and opinions about war happening since Crimea to justify training Ukrainian troops before this invasion. There's no shortage of grifters on youtube and their supporters ready to carry water for them over their supposed entertainment value.

This channel sounds like it flatters the watchers into thinking they know something about grand strategy.

It's not about 'russia don't feel safe'. It's that the strategic goal, regardless of politics or ideology or economics of whoever controls the russian core territory for hundreds of years has been to expand. That Russia is in long term demographic and economic decline and that this may be the last chance to reverse or mitigate this.

The bit about China wasn't a tangent it was a direct example of a situation where geostrategy explains a country's actions better than economic or military self interest.

I can't speak apart from my own perspective, but I consume a wide variety of news sources from across the world, and a majority of the mainstream news sources were at the very least skeptical of a full invasion even in the weeks directly prior to the invasion when there was photographic evidence of Russia massing troops in preparation for an invasion, because Russia's actions make absolutely zero sense in any traditional rational cost/benefit analysis.

What is your explanation for Russia's actions? Or are you just upset because he doesn't give the simple moralistic 'Russia bad' narrative? He obviously doesn't agree with what Russia is doing, and doesn't think we should let them get away with it, he is just looking at their actions from a particular lens to try to understand them.

 

[LimanimaPT]

I know shit about gepolitics. What I do know, and this are facts:
Ruzzia invaded a soberan nation. Russia is bombing civilians, killing children, commiting war crimes everyday, destroying entire cities, attacking civilian infrastructures. Ruzzia caused the deaths of thousands of people, nazzi style.
So, all I want is to see Ruzzia being kicked out of Ukraine and putler with a bullet in his head.
Please give Ukraine tanks, F-16s, long range missiles and all that is necessary to kill every single wagner sadist and ruzzian soldier that has a toe in Ukraine.

I can't even understand what are you guys arguing about...

 

[Kraz]

What is your explanation for Russia's actions? Or are you just upset because he doesn't give the simple moralistic 'Russia bad' narrative? He obviously doesn't agree with what Russia is doing, and doesn't think we should let them get away with it, he is just looking at their actions from a particular lens to try to understand them.

That Russia felt that they were safe at home and safe to invade. That they mistakenly saw Ukrainians and the West as weak. That attitude might be changing. For long range prediction, Ukraine will push Russia out and there will be a massive build up at their border then things will de-escalate when it's certain Ukraine isn't going any further.

 

[winjer]

This kind of attitude is baffling.

Frankly, we're not being very objective if we think Ukranians are all decent people, either, rather than yet another complex geopolitical actor with severe problems of its own all the way down into its ethically ambiguous military.

The US/West strategy of trying to create a pure victim society out of Ukraine is bizarre and just a shield for trying to keep up a proxy war with Russia. Screw that.

Ukrainians are people, just humans, neither more, nor less. And as such, they have their good things and their bad things.
What you can be sure is that Ukraine didn't invade Russia. But in the last century, Russia ha invaded Ukraine several times. So guess which country is the victim here.

The EU was very content in having Russia as an economic partner. That's why so much trade was being done between the two.
But enough is enough. Russia has made 8 invasions of it's neighbors since 1992. And these weren't provoked by NATO, the US, the EU or some other country. It was all a choice made by Russia.
If the west didn't support Ukraine, then Poland, Estonia, Lithuania, Finland, Romania, Latvia, would be next.
Russia was not provoked. Russia is the one provoking other countries and clamming false flag excuses to invade.

 

[iamblades]

That Russia felt that they were safe at home and safe to invade. That they mistakenly saw Ukrainians and the West as weak. That attitude might be changing. For long range prediction, Ukraine will push Russia out and there will be a massive build up at their border then things will de-escalate when it's certain Ukraine isn't going any further.

That explains why they weren't deterred, not entirely why they wanted to do it. Not that Zeihan explains it entirely either, I just think his perspective is interesting.

As for your long range prediction, that is certainly the ideal end state from my perspective, and probably Zeihan's as well. I am not sure we have reached the decisive point towards that goal yet though.

Western policy in Ukraine is still far too reactive for my tastes. From day one we should have been training Ukrainian on the tech that we have only recently started doing, and in mass scale, not this dozen tanks here, 50 IFVs here bullshit, but whole divisions

 

[PuppetMaster]

https://oalexanderdk.substack.com/p/blowing-holes-in-seymour-hershs-pipe

Blowing Holes in Seymour Hersh's Pipe Dream​

On the surface Seymour Hersh's story looks passable, but as you dig deeper it has more holes than the Nord Stream pipeline.​

 

[Tams]

https://oalexanderdk.substack.com/p/blowing-holes-in-seymour-hershs-pipe

Blowing Holes in Seymour Hersh's Pipe Dream​

On the surface Seymour Hersh's story looks passable, but as you dig deeper it has more holes than the Nord Stream pipeline.​

I got 'ChatGPT' as an alter ego to pump out this, which as just as much veracity and as Hersh's:

"The investigation into the attack has been shrouded in secrecy, but our anonymous source has come forward with shocking new information. They reveal that the operation was carried out by US Navy Seal divers under orders from the highest levels of the US government. The source also claims that the attack was carried out as part of the BALTOPS operation and that Norway was aware of the situation and may have even suggested it.

The source goes on to say that the US government was motivated by their desire to control the energy supply in the region and to send a message to the world that they will stop at nothing to secure their interests. The fact that the attack was carried out by elite military personnel with such precision only adds to the credibility of these allegations.

While the world waits with bated breath for official confirmation, it is clear that this story is far from over. The ramifications of this attack will be felt for years to come and the truth may never fully be known. Stay tuned for further updates as the situation develops."

 

[Chiggs]

This seems not only unreliable but there's no reporting in it, it's straight up fiction.

Do you really think it’s that implausible? I ask because I’m willing to give anything Robert Scheer has on his site some level of attention.

 

[NoLootBoxDev]

35 countries will demand the removal of Russians from the 2024 Olympics​

censor.net/ua/new...

I think those on the Ruzzian team where using the "Z" which is really fucking disgusting. They should get banned.

 

[Bitmap Frogs]

Good day was had yesterday... the orcs lost 14 tanks and a bunch of armored fighting vehicles in a single attack.

Ukrainian defense ministry reports so far 136.880 orcs have fertilized the land.

 

[winjer]

 

[Liljagare]

Good day was had yesterday... the orcs lost 14 tanks and a bunch of armored fighting vehicles in a single attack.

Ukrainian defense ministry reports so far 136.880 orcs have fertilized the land.

Losses were likely higher than that, were alot of videos floating around on nitter. Several battlegroups got wiped out, and columns of armour left as smoking husks. It was probarly one of the worst days so far for the RuSSKies.

Hoping that Ukrainian losses lie on the minimal side, because this is just a meatgrinder atm.

 

[Valedix]

Another day of 1000 dead Ruzzians insane

 

[dead monkey uk]

Another day of 1000 dead Ruzzians insane

Are we sure Ukraine is not camping out at a Russian respawn point.

Absolutely crazy numbers lately.

 

[Liljagare]

Ukrainian air defenses take down a Russian cruise missile during the Kremlin's latest mass missile attack on Ukrainian infrastructure on Feb. 10. Ukraine shot down 61 of 74 cruise missiles and 22 of 28 Shahed flying bombs. Including the S-300s, Russia fired 106 missiles in total.

Video:

 

[BlackTron]

The main genocide is a never-ending war being rallied on by outside nations whose main interest is to keep Russia dragged into a conflict...

Calling anything other than what Russia is doing the "main genocide" has branded you as a complete clown. Way to go, you must feel so contrarian.

I don't wave Ukrainian flags either because I feel it is so far removed from reality, a hollow support. But any person doing that is automatically miles better than a complete loser like you.

 

[Liljagare]

One RuSSkie tank battalion lost yesterday:



Bonus, has be called suicide?!

 

[Trunx81]

As discussions over the current war always seem to extend into two sides yelling at each other, I would like to discuss as well the status quo AFTER the war.

Let’s say the Ukraine wins, Russia is send back and Putin is either killed or put in trial. How will the world deal with this vacuum of power?

Imagine a defeated, humiliated Russia with no more weapons left to defend itself. Who would rise first to take advantage of this situation? Chechnya probably. What about China? Would they just sit there, looking over the boarder and think “Hey that part looks delicious and it’s unprotected right now, so why shouldn’t I just take it?”
What about Syria? Right now, Russia is still engaged there. Without them, will Turkey march in and take over?

Or do we expect every country around the Russian borders to respect the borders?

 

[Artoris]

As discussions over the current war always seem to extend into two sides yelling at each other, I would like to discuss as well the status quo AFTER the war.

Let’s say the Ukraine wins, Russia is send back and Putin is either killed or put in trial. How will the world deal with this vacuum of power?

Imagine a defeated, humiliated Russia with no more weapons left to defend itself. Who would rise first to take advantage of this situation? Chechnya probably. What about China? Would they just sit there, looking over the boarder and think “Hey that part looks delicious and it’s unprotected right now, so why shouldn’t I just take it?”
What about Syria? Right now, Russia is still engaged there. Without them, will Turkey march in and take over?

Or do we expect every country around the Russian borders to respect the borders?

"Or do we expect every country around the Russian borders to respect the borders?"

If they would not have nukes, no

 

[winjer]

As discussions over the current war always seem to extend into two sides yelling at each other, I would like to discuss as well the status quo AFTER the war.

Let’s say the Ukraine wins, Russia is send back and Putin is either killed or put in trial. How will the world deal with this vacuum of power?

Imagine a defeated, humiliated Russia with no more weapons left to defend itself. Who would rise first to take advantage of this situation? Chechnya probably. What about China? Would they just sit there, looking over the boarder and think “Hey that part looks delicious and it’s unprotected right now, so why shouldn’t I just take it?”
What about Syria? Right now, Russia is still engaged there. Without them, will Turkey march in and take over?

Or do we expect every country around the Russian borders to respect the borders?

No one will invade Russia, even if they lose most conventional weapons. Russia still has nuclear weapons.

China might try to get back some of the territories they lost to Russia during the XX century. And the same with Japan. Bit not with invasion, but through diplomatic and economic means.
But this will depend on who is in power by then. If it's some ultra nationalist, they will never agree to ceding territory, even if it was Russia who stole in in the first place.

Countries that were invaded in the last couple of decades, by Putin, might see this opportunity to get back the territory they lost. Georgia is a good example of that.

Unlike what Russian propaganda tries to push, the west has no interest in invading Russia.

What is left of the CSTO is probably going to crumble, as no one trusts Russia to be an ally.

Some parts of Russia might try to split away from the Russian Federation. The first that come to mind are the regions with a Muslim majority.

 

[Trunx81]

"Or do we expect every country around the Russian borders to respect the borders?"

If they would not have nukes, no

Russia won’t have any nukes after being defeated.

No one will invade Russia, even if they lose most conventional weapons. Russia still has nuclear weapons..

Or do we really want to leave nuclear weapons in the hands of an unstable country, which Russia will be after a defeat? This would lead to even greater Desaster.

 

[winjer]

Russia won’t have any nukes after being defeated.

Or do we really want to leave nuclear weapons in the hands of an unstable country, which Russia will be after a defeat? This would lead to even greater Desaster.

How do you intend to take away nuclear weapons, from a nuclear power, with a long history of genocide and war?

 

[Wildebeest]

Or do we expect every country around the Russian borders to respect the borders?

Border issues would only occur if the Russian Federation breaks up, which is a reason why it probably wouldn't break up. I suppose it is possible Russia might hand some land in the east over to China in exchange for some agreement, in a fire sale type deal.

 

[Trunx81]

How do you intend to take away nuclear weapons, from a nuclear power, with a long history of genocide and war?

Exactly. That’s why I’m asking: What happens after the war? What are the (global) consequences of winning? Am I really the first one asking this?

Best case: Ukraine wins. Putin is out of charge (and with him the whole Duma and warmongers). Russia has democratic elections. Pays for its crimes. But stays in the same shape as it is right now. But for that, Russia would still need weapons. Do we want this?

 

[Artoris]

Exactly. That’s why I’m asking: What happens after the war? What are the (global) consequences of winning? Am I really the first one asking this?

Best case: Ukraine wins. Putin is out of charge (and with him the whole Duma and warmongers). Russia has democratic elections. Pays for its crimes. But stays in the same shape as it is right now. But for that, Russia would still need weapons. Do we want this?

Another thing is that nuclear weapons are very expensive to maintain they may not have enough money to do so but that would take decades

 

[winjer]

The biggest issue, is that if the Russian system falls, it might lead to corrupt officials selling nukes in the black market.
This might lead to some countries acquiring nukes. An example of this would be Iran. But if Iran gets nukes, then Saudi Arabia will want them as well, to defend itself.
But then the question is from whom will the Saudis turn to. Maybe they will ask the US, but the US will never give nukes to Saudi, at best they will place their own nukes there, under US control. But never under Saudi control.
Or maybe the Saudis just buy some from Russia as well. Or from Pakistan.

But it might also lead to some terrorist groups acquiring nukes. And if this happens, then the world will be in a worse place than after 9/11.

 

[Tams]

Exactly. That’s why I’m asking: What happens after the war? What are the (global) consequences of winning? Am I really the first one asking this?

Best case: Ukraine wins. Putin is out of charge (and with him the whole Duma and warmongers). Russia has democratic elections. Pays for its crimes. But stays in the same shape as it is right now. But for that, Russia would still need weapons. Do we want this?

No one on here knows, and frankly nor does anyone.

For the experts at least, a lot of that is because any prediction would include a lot hypotheticals.

So no, you aren't some lone galaxy brain.