[cmrdporcupine]

No, there's a new mass troop mobilization coming, the grain deal was cancelled, Russia is firing on civilian shipping ports (including ones right on the border with NATO ally (EDIT: meant member) Romania), and Belarus is performing provocations across the Polish border.

Unfortunately, I think things are just getting started.

[simiones]

NATO member Romania, to be clear.

[cmrdporcupine]

Sorry, meant that implied but didn't use the right language.

[AnimalMuppet]

Warning: rampant speculation.

Why is Belarus performing provocations on the Polish border? Seems to me that Lukashenko is either doing it for himself, or for Putin. I can't see why he'd be doing it for himself. He might see Poland, flawed but still something of a democracy, as a threat to inspire those seeking democracy in Belarus.

But it seems to me to be more likely that he's doing it for Putin. (This also might involve Wagner going to Belarus, not to escape Russia after the coup attempt, but in order to do a job for Russia.) But what's the point? Belarus isn't going to conquer Poland. Russia's not going to conquer the Baltics. So what's going on?

If this is all a master plan, I think it's most likely that Putin is trying to create a war (or at least a real threat of war) with NATO, to give him an excuse to call for a mass mobilization in Russia. This in turn will give him enough force to at least keep what he has in Ukraine. (He's gambling - almost certainly correctly - that NATO has no stomach for anything beyond defending themselves. Think of the "Phony War" phase of the western front in WWII.)

If I'm right, this is an extremely dangerous game that Putin is playing. Wagner could get out of hand (it already did once). The war could escalate. The Russian population could get fed up. The Russian elites could get fed up.

But Putin may feel that he has no choice, because otherwise he would lose power, and because he may not survive a fall from power.

(Wow, this has gone really far afield from a discussion of a promising cancer drug!)

[jakeinspace]

NATO will bomb and possibly even occupy Belarus in this scenario. Granted, deterring this is probably why russia placed nukes there, so perhaps NATO will provide 48 hours warning for Russia to remove its weapons. It will also provide Ukraine with aircraft and long range missiles. I don’t see how losing Belarus in order to solidify control over Eastern Ukraine and Crimea is a good strategic play.

[tremon]

I don't think NATO would give advance warning because of those missiles. Capturing those weapons and disarming them seems like a worthwhile goal.

[cmrdporcupine]

Russian (and presumably Belarusian) nuclear doctrine is: strike when home territory is substantially threatened/invaded. There's no way that NATO wouldn't give warning of its intent and risk a nuclear exchange.

My guess is what would likely happen is NATO would yell loudly, look like it was ineffective and couldn't decide what to do, but in reality suddenly "Ukraine" would suddenly sink some expensive big ships in the Black Sea or take down a strategic bomber or two, using advanced US/European weaponry, and NATO would shrug and say "Huh. Neat. Wasn't us tho"

[cmrdporcupine]

Causing chaos on NATO's borders I think isn't meant to stir up a war with NATO but rather to project an image of strength domestically and within other regions that Russia dominates and to further stoke the fires of ethno-nationalism they feed off.

Plus creating chaos in general seems part of the goal. Russia was losing (well, lost) hegemony in Ukraine post 2014, but damned if it's going to permit its success outside of of Russian control. Absolutely laying waste to Ukraine will not bring Ukraine back under Russian influence and has turned even formerly pro-Russian people in places like Odessa into Ukrainian nationalists. But this matters little to them, because Putin/Lavrov have already clearly bargained on losing them. ... So instead, create chaos not only in Ukraine but across all of Europe, making an example out of them and sewing destruction in order to prevent further splintering of Russian influence.

And it plays well to the domestic audience, and to the blindly "stick it to the West" types. Bitter ethnic animosity between Russians and Poles works for jingoistic demagogues on both sides of the border. Talking shit about Poland keeps Putin's domestic support strong. And (basically explicitly fascist) Wagner's philosophy of might-makes-right and chaos-making clearly plays well to the audience at home, so two birds one stone, sticking Wagner next to Poland to rattle some sabres.

The question is whether ultimately NATO falls for Lukashenko and Putin's stupid trap, and the next time a provocation like this happens, a helicopter or two is obliterated or a ship in the Black Sea is sunk (again), and then the hyper-nationalist audience at home can froth at the mouth some more and Putin's ratings go even higher.

But I think NATO leaders are smart enough to see the provocations for what they are.

[benterix]

Well, in 2015 Turkey shot down a Russian fighter for crossing the border just a mile or two, everybody thought there will be WW III but nothing happened.

[cmrdporcupine]

NATO doesn't need to do that kind of thing now. Ukraine is already fighting (and partially winning) a war against Russia that NATO is freely and openly supporting. There's no advantage in escalating these kinds of skirmishes when NATO can just shrug and then turn around and hand Ukraine bigger and badder guns and say "go at it, boys" instead, and avoid direct confrontation (which Putin doesn't want, either).

Of course, there _is_ a line, and Russia will probe to see where that is, but they won't cross it.

It's yet another reason why NATO is so firmly bound to supporting Ukraine. Before the opening of direct hostilities there, Russia engaged in all sorts of shit in the west with no consequences. Cyber attacks and surveillance stuff, but actually doing things like brazenly poisoning people on NATO soil and in the process killing UK civilians. Or shooting down civilian airliners. And never paying any consequence because we were afraid of war.

Well, now there's a war, but we don't have to be directly involved with the threat of nukes and cruise missiles hitting our cities...

The one place where I do see risk of the line being crossed is in the Black Sea. I'm disappointed that Turkey and NATO have not taken a firmer line. I hope/expect to see a stronger response to events like what happened in the port on the Danube a couple days ago.

It makes no sense for Russia to be allowed to control the waters outside of its territory on a sea where the coastline is filled with NATO countries.

If there is a serious flare up, it will be there, and naval.

[lacrimacida]

> The Russian population could get fed up. The Russian elites could get fed up.

I think the Russian populaiton is still largely supporting Putin and eating his propaganda on bread every morning and evening from state media channels.

Some of them who are fed up cannot do anything about it as they can face extremely harsh punishments.

The elites may be sick of it, they lost a lot of ‘business’ since the start of the military operation, and from time to time another one bites the dust from an open window high up on a building.

And there are factions within Russia that fight one another and yet they are somehow all in support of Putin.