[pc_edwin]

Interesting read. The underlying point here is what many of us have been saying since the beginning of the conflict.

Putin is not some crazy drugged up megalomaniac. Morality aside, his moves are clearly rational and shows a high level of sophistication.

A small window of opportunity opened up just after covid. Russia got a chance to make its last stand against the rapid decline of its sphere of influence and sovereignty.

Many people don't seem to realise how existential this is for Russia. Being surrounded by Nato on side and China on the other whilst rapidly declining as a nation (economy, birth rates, military etc etc) is really not good.

[chalcolithic]

>Many people don't seem to realise how existential this is for Russia.

I, being Russian, can not understand how is that an existential threat to a country that has the largest nuclear arsenal in the world, has insane amount of natural resources, and enjoys a virtually exclusive access to the best demographic reservoir in the world (except for Haredim, but it's not like they're planning to move anywhere, so yeah, the best one actually).

[pc_edwin]

Over the span of three decades your nation went from being a global superpower with immense economic, political and military power to a rapid declining shell of its former self.

Your economy is more comparable to an American state like Florida than a powerful country. You're nation is a political pariah with fleeting influence even among former ussr members. You capability to exert military power outside of your own borders have been effectively disabled having being surrounded by NATO and with a heavily depleted military.

All of this combined with the natural resources and land you mentioned is exactly why its open season on Russia to be carved up by actors with higher economic, military and political power.

If I was in your shoes, I would either give up and move or do anything and everything I can to improve the odds of the terrible hand your nation has been given..

[chalcolithic]

>global superpower with immense economic, political and military power

I seen it from inside - you've bought into a Potemkin's village. When it was a "global superpower" (on paper) it was a much, much worse country by any measure.

>You're nation is a political pariah with fleeting influence even among former ussr members.

When the war has started that's exactly where I moved to. Turns out you're very wrong about it (didn't know it myself)

[pc_edwin]

Btw going to back to my op, this is exactly what Putin has been doing by working on hypersonic missiles. Taking Crimea. Trying to forcefully bring Ukraine back to Russia's sphere of influence.. etc

I'm not saying I condone his actions. I'm saying his actions are rational and strategic.

Putins choices were either leave a legacy of a slowly declining Russian federation until there isn't one or make massive gambits like this reverse Russias fortune.

The thing is, such gambits carries the risk of accelerating the current fate..

If I was ever put in a similar situation, my god I pray to have the balls and conviction to pull the trigger on such moves. It would be so much easier to just put up the appearances of normalcy by moving the chairs of the titanic while it sinks..

[khokhol]

He has plenty of other choices, actually. Even now.

It's just that they involve some combination of letting go of his expansionist fantasies, relaxing his absolute grip on power, or watering-down his so-called legacy. So of course he won't pursue them.

[mr_toad]

I don’t know about existential. Britain, France, Spain, Portugal, Turkey, Hungary all lost their empires without ceasing to exist.

[refurb]

Few of those empires lost territory between themselves and what they viewed as hostile powers.

For the UK, France, Spain, Portugal it was overseas empires

[ghiculescu]

Do you think their leaders at the time were fine with this?

[boulos]

Queen Elizabeth II oversaw a lot of the final decline of the British Empire and Commonwealth. She seemed okay with it.

[injb]

That's a good question to think about actually. I don't think they handled it the way Russia is handling it now (assuming that this is in fact what's happening with Russia).

Actually the big European powers gave up their empires fairly quietly. Yes they sometimes fought wars to keep them on a case by case basis, but I don't think any of them launched large scale campaigns of invasion as a response.

[Affric]

I am sorry but Ireland, Kenya, the Malayan emergency, the Indian mutiny, the Vietnam war, Portugal’s wars, Algeria, Suez, Spain from 1820s+…

I would not call any of that quiet. And Suez was definitely an invasion.

Hell, US hegemony was challenged by Al-Qaeda and they invaded Iraq.

Russia is different in that rather than being a seaborne empire they were a land based empire. The Austro-Hungarians invaded Serbia when their Balkan ambitions were looking like being thwarted.

[picadores]

There were also significantly counter-culture movements against anti-imperialism similar to the russian anti-woke-culture war (after all it discredits imperialism) and thus dissolves the russian empire if looked at through this lense. They were just discredited after hitler dialed imperialism up to eleven.

[kelseyfrog]

They were all wrong

[ghiculescu]

That’s a powerful diplomatic argument, and I’m shocked Putin hasn’t reconsidered now you’ve made it.

[kelseyfrog]

It's not a diplomatic argument and I didn't know Putin was on HN ;P

[bdangubic]

feels like there is something different between countries you have listed and Russia, just can’t put my finger on what it is… :)

[pc_edwin]

The British empire peacefully transferred power to their descendents/cousins, this is a success story. Speaking english. Christian. Shared ancestry.

Besides, we are not talking about breaking up the empire. That already happened with the dissolution of the USSR. We are talking about the extinction of a nation.

It would be like if the UK was split into Scotland, a puppet of the EU. Wales, a quasi independant state with strong ties to Scotland. England, a former power center. Finally Ireland becomes whole.

Do you really think the brits will be cool with this, especially if lets say Russia/China was working behind the scenes to make it happen and the so called ally EU was all too happy to gain all this new power and influence...

[mindslight]

The article's analysis focuses on a rivalry between Russia and Poland. At least in my book, being stuck on a rivalry to the point of your own destruction is the exact opposite of "clearly rational" and having "a high level of sophistication".

If Poland has gained this newfound strength by shoring up its western border through cooperation and trade, and Putin is worried about Ukraine just being able to do so as well, it begs the question of why Russia could not have done the exact same thing. And well it probably could have, if not for its wealth being squandered on a kleptocracy as touched in a few sibling comments. The resource curse strikes again.

[achikin]

Putin tried to do that at the beginning of his presidency. He was talking a lot about joining NATO and even EU, but that didn’t go anywhere. Russia is much more valuable to the EU as a fossil colony.

[yks]

The largest, most resource-rich, nuclear-protected country in the world with the decent education cannot advance without raping its neighbors, because checks notes neighbors wanted to trade fossils with it?

[Affric]

Russia has demographic problems. They still have fewer citizens than in 1989.

Russia’s economy was thoroughly fucked by the collapse of the USSR.

Putin’s campaigns in Ukraine have been barbaric and I don’t pretend to understand the logic but Russia’s natural resources cannot make up for their problems.

[yks]

Ultimately neither will imperial expansion. They are not solving their problems, they just loot weaker neighbors and blame everyone but themselves. In reality Russia got maybe the best hand on this planet, so they definitely as a society could choose a path to prosperity instead of replaying medieval conquests, squandering whatever demographics they have left. Stolen Ukrainian kids are also a limited resource after all, when they run out, what will Russians do?

[Affric]

Right, but like the article says, in Poland westernisation was set as a return to Europe. “Europe” has for centuries defined itself against Russia. The last time Russia looked to the west, rather than inwards, they got shock therapy.

Beyond that Russia’s hand is so good because of the very imperialism we are all decrying.

You’re arguing that the Russian body politic should shrug off its distinct characteristics and submit to the west.

Hard to see any of that happening with anything short of revolution.

[ChatGTP]

Many people don't seem to realize how existential this is for Russia

What was existential for Russia? If they had of just remained peaceful and sold resources to the rest of the world, nothing would've happened to them, there was nothing existential about it.

Maybe Putin is a paranoid lunatic and thinks people were out to get him, but there is no way there was some secret western plot to invade Russia or anything like this? In fact, Europe and the rest of the world was trading with them just fine. All we hear about on here was how Germany is completely dependent on Russia.

The truth is, countries side with NATO for a reason, because they have something to offer. If Russia had something better to offer, was trustworthy and Putin supported democracy, maybe less countries would be interested in partnering with the west and happy to form stronger ties with the autocracy. It doesn't mean anyone was about to invade Russia though.

Edit: Down voters, let's hear your counter.

[tsimionescu]

No one was about to invade Russia, not today. But NATO is by definition an alliance created against Russia, and it has a long history of trying to initiate regime changes in its enemies.

You have to remember that Russia is a federation, one with much deeper internal divides than the USA. The closer we are to Russia, the easier it is for us to fund, train, and arm Russia's separatist elements.

If NATO was officially present if Georgia, do you think it would ignore any pleas for help from chechen separatists trying to defend themselves from the butcher running them? Or would we actively work to try to make Chechenia an independent country, over the next 10-20 years?

And Chechenia is far from the only vulnerable place.

Note that I am not saying this would be a bad thing for the people of Chechenia. It is quite likely what a lot of them want. But if Russia were funding, arming, and training the IRA, or Texas's secessionist fringe, would the USA or UK be happy to allow this? No, empires are fundamentally built out of people who try to maintain their empire.

[ChatGTP]

and it has a long history of trying to initiate regime changes in its enemies.

1. A regime change would not be existential for Russia, it would be existential for Putin. Maybe that's why he panicked or something, but if one man has the power to take a country on an idiotic war like that, then maybe a regime change is a good idea.

2. You’re not really presenting a lot of evidence there was a by real risk of this actually happening?

3. How does anything you’ve said justify invading Ukraine?

Regardless it’s all failing spectacularly if the goal was to create distance between Russia and NATO. Finland is now in NATO and is on the border.

[tsimionescu]

> 1. A regime change would not be existential for Russia, it would be existential for Putin.

Regime change means your enemies controlling who runs your country. It is an existential threat for the whole state, even if it would be better for the populace.

When the USA suspected Russia of influencing their elections, no one said (and rightfully so) "that is only existential for Hillary, not for America, why should we care?".

> 2. You’re not really presenting a lot of evidence there was a by real risk of this actually happening?

The constant talk of the necessity of changing Putin and the EU and US support for Navalnyi make it obvious that NATO powers want regime change in Russia.

Whether they would actually spend resources to actually work for it is not something I could possibly bring evidence for. But several EU countries and the USA have often initiated or supported regime change in smaller countries when they were able to. Quite recently unsuccessfully in Venezuela and Syria. And more saliently, they did so in Ukraine in 2008, helping the Ukrianian people get rid of Yanukovich.

> 3. How does anything you’ve said justify invading Ukraine?

Invading Ukraine prevents it from joining NATO, which it was on a very clear path towards (they had had joint military exercises just one year prior, with NATO troups in Ukraine). The same happened with Georgia, but they Georgia acceeded to the Russian demands more readily.

Even if they fail to conquer Ukraine, they will keep it in a state of frozen conflict that will likely delay any further rapproachment for a decade or two.

Also, none of this makes what Russia did any less monstrous and detrimental to the Ukrianian people (nor to their own soldiers). There is no question whatsoever that it is highly immoral and a condemnable act, and a clear case of breaking international law, a clear act of aggression, the international crime for which most of the nazi leadership was hanged.

I'm just arguing it was a rational calculated decision, not some insane power play motivated by historical revisionism.

[tim333]

>Regime change means your enemies controlling who runs your country

Not really. The push has been towards democracy where who runs the country would be decided by the Russian people.

[ChatGTP]

I thought that comment was off too.

[tsimionescu]

So if a more radical nationalist imperialist than Putin were to win open free elections, do you think NATO would be happy?

Not to mention, by all accounts, Putin would probably win fully free elections even today. The opponents he's suppressing or killing are not extremely popular today, they are people who he fears might become popular if left unchecked.

[yks]

It is not existential for Russia, it's just yet another barely consistent concept Russian apologists are throwing around in hope it sticks. I vividly remember how there were dozens of comments on this website defending the lunatic conspiracy theory about "NATO biolabs below Azovstal" during week 3 of the invasion, so HN is just another social media "zone" which Russians and their Western sympathizers try to "flood with shit", quoting one of their ideologues.

[pc_edwin]

It goes with out saying, I mostly disagree with Noah but I find the depth of his content so refreshing.

It is very rare to see this level of sophistication and depth from the people he shares his political believes with.

[SkeuomorphicBee]

> Putin is not some crazy drugged up megalomaniac. Morality aside, his moves are clearly rational and shows a high level of sophistication.

Nothing rational or sophisticated about trying to build a 19th century style land empire in the 21st century. The mindless quest for a sphere of influence is madness in our modern word, something that can only come from the mind of a crazy megalomaniac who thinks of sovereignty not in regards to modern borders, but in regards to a historic empire of his dreams. He believes Ukraine (and Belorussia, and Georgia, ...) are part of Russia, so anytime one of those stops playing the part (stop being a puppet/satellite) he invades (Georgia 2008, Ukraine 2014 and 2022).

[doubloon]

the reason their economy, birth rates, and military go into the toilet is because of their shitty rulers stole the money and spent it on whores and cocaine instead of education and infrastructure, not because they lost territory or sovereignty or any of this shit. if putin was rational and sophisticated his country would not be flushing itself down the toilet.

russia used to be a mathematical, scientific, technological pioneer, also with major contributions to humanities, literature, and the arts. they kicked all those people out of the country for being un-macho nerds and now they have redneck oil idiots running the place and brainwashing the uneducated rural population into dying by the 100,000 alongside rapists and murderers in human wave attacks into an innocent country that never attacked them.

[mistrial9]

> now they have redneck oil idiots running the place and brainwashing the uneducated rural

that sounds like Texas politics to me

[frozenport]

Putin != Russia

It was, and has always been a war to maintain a kleptocratic autocrat.

[hollerith]

Navalny has always maintained that Crimea should be part of Russia, as did Yeltsin, so there goes your theory that the cause of the war is the idea that Putin is an especially bad leader.

[scrubs]

Claiming? That's talk. Taking it then allows indeed begs pushback that need not recognize any normality or consistency in any russian claims. Russia also decided Ukraine should be its own country then changed their mind. So ... so much for that