[gregjor]

Reasoning that works to determine the probability of drawing a spade from a deck of cards doesn’t apply to scenarios like this. We know the exact distribution of spades in a deck of cards. No one but Putin knows what he wants, or will do, or will think important tomorrow. No one knows how complex situations involving individual personalities and contingencies and unknown unknowns will play out. To play fortune teller with a veneer of math and “logic” just seems like showing off — look at me, so rational and smart and full of deep insight.

Anyone can imagine hundreds of alternatives to the six outcomes the author lists. Putin could choke on his breakfast tomorrow, or fall down a flight of stairs. Winter will hit the region soon, the soldiers might freeze and starve. Why not attach probabilities to those possibilities?

Worrying about things you cannot influence or change strikes me as deeply irrational. “We” as in “the west” can influence the Ukraine situation, but “we” don’t make collective decisions. Extrapolating from “I belong the group of people collectively referred to as America or The West” to “my opinion makes a difference and can influence events” veers into category error. Do you suppose the politicians in D.C. and the military leaders of NATO read Less Wrong posts?

The Ukraine war has many possible outcomes, none of which anyone can predict, and none of which any one person can control. History teaches that. Cherry-picking Finland, Kosovo, Vietnam, etc. as the only possible outcomes misses the unique circumstances of those conflicts and outcomes. Why not include the last Crimean War as a possible outcome? Or the one time nuclear weapons did get used in a war?