Comment by mhuffman
4 years ago
A few obvious ways:
1. Russia starts "testing" nukes and a deal is brokered that pisses off both Ukraine and Russia but allows them both to claim "victory", save face and not start a thermonuclear war (this is Henry Kissinger's take); or
2. US loses its taste of financing and completely backing the Ukrainian war if a big recession hits here (hard to support Ukraine when we start "really" feeling a economic hit at home and politicians are on TV everyday talking about how much is being sent to Ukraine); or
3. Putin has a health/life issue and a Western-friendly replacement is installed in Russia (Putin is no Spring chicken!)
All good, but I would add a more likely senario: A stalemate where Ukraine efectivly regains almost all of its territory, Russia is unable to sustain a meaningful campaign, but Russia continiues limited attacks with missiles and some artilery pokes near the border to avoid lossing face.
This would gel very well with scenario #3 as well!
...a Western-friendly replacement is installed in Russia...
Some have forgotten that Putin was originally declared "a Western-friendly replacement". The world would have been a more peaceful place if we hadn't interfered in Russian politics to support Yeltsin and his chosen successor. Russia isn't the only nation in which our choice (??) of leader has led to "blowback", both for the victim nation and for most Americans. We should stop doing this.
This is an accurate and very reasonable comment, it has been downvoted by people who do not know some very basic facts about post-USSR era Russia
Yeltsin was quite different from the successor in question. He "gave up" his "family" ruling in exchange for security guarantees.
USA probably should've chosen a stronger leader to support, but there wasn't much choice at that time. Or at least they should've helped to organize the transition of power to someone with a more credible past than that of a KGB officer.
On the US financing Ukraine, the house legislature party switch is likely to lead to this without any catastrophe or new events.
Though, the US legislature is less likely to be able to navigate an economic disaster during this split as well.
> Russia starts "testing" nukes and a deal is brokered that pisses off both Ukraine and Russia but allows them both to claim "victory", save face and not start a thermonuclear war (this is Henry Kissinger's take); or
That seems like a bad precedent - nuclear blackmail and aggression works, you get rewarded with territory/concessions.
It is certainly a possibility, but in a way loss of credibility for US/West.
> US loses its taste of financing and completely backing the Ukrainian war if a big recession hits here (hard to support Ukraine when we start "really" feeling a economic hit at home and politicians are on TV everyday talking about how much is being sent to Ukraine); or
I think the monetary help might decrease, but the military help rather not. Sending old weapon stocks don't really produce any economic hit.
> Putin has a health/life issue and a Western-friendly replacement is installed in Russia (Putin is no Spring chicken!)
This is very unlikely to happen. Putin might be replaced one way or another, but the replacement won't be particularly friendly to the West. They might be slightly less (or more) antagonistic.
>That seems like a bad precedent
We do it all the time with North Korea.
>... - nuclear blackmail and aggression works, you get rewarded with territory/concessions.
I don't think the concession would be territory, more likely a treaty to block NATO membership for Ukraine (say no Ukraine NATO membership for 20 years, or something like that). Possibly also deny access to join the EU (even though that idea has heavy steam right now).
> We do it all the time with North Korea.
Some food help is not comparable.
> I don't think the concession would be territory
If Russia "loses" Crimea, then it's an undeniable Russian fiasco and Putin has no way to claim the war as a success.
It sounds like a weird scenario where Russia threatens to use nukes and then leaves satisfied with no NATO membership. (worth reminding that this war wasn't about NATO at all)
3 replies →
Apart from (1), the rest of your scenarios are unlikely.
Assuming (1) does not happen, there is likely little chance of the West seriously dropping its support for Ukraine. Maybe popular opinion of citizens will increasingly turn against the support, but the governments know very well what kind of message not supporting Ukraine sends to Russia.
And, Putin may well have a health/life issue, but if power passes to another person, it is likely to be someone even more hawkish than Putin. If you follow Russian opinion it seems Putin is seen as rather soft.
For #2, imagine how fast a new Trump presidency (unlikely, I think, but you take my point) would stop shipments to Ukraine. Also a very large economic impact here (say something twice the size of 2008) might have our government at least focused on something else rather than having to explain why a bunch of citizens are homeless and hungry but we are sending billions to Ukraine every month. It is one thing to support a war across the world when it is "just money" and everyone here is mostly fat and happy. It is altogether something else when you have to start worrying about your own family at home.
As for #3 a new person taking power can bend to local sentiment to keep up pressure but without the full commitment that Putin is making in Ukraine. This could play well locally (I suspect not a lot of Russians are happy to die for Ukraine) and be more "Western friendly" than a full-on war.
3a Although any "Putin replacement" could end the current Russian folly in Ukraine, if only to put a "under new management, I don't own the last guy's mistakes" stamp on their rule; but a viable replacement Russian leader is quite unlikely to be "Western-Friendly" in general. And there would then be Trouble at some point in the future.
re #3, aren't the senior Kremlin figures just as pro-war/Z as Putin (or even more so)? This would suggest that unless politics in Russia is completely upended in the event of Putin dying or being incapacitated, the war would likely continue or escalate :-/
Well, a new body can still talk all the same old shit, but give in to a (probably) popular (in Russia) sentiment to chill out. I don't know what the propaganda would be to say that they both won and also don't have parts of Ukraine.
Well let's hope so. I can't honestly say that I know all the intricate details (note how I said "senior Kremlin figures" because other than Medvedev, Prigozhin and Shoigu I don't know everyone involved) but I am a little pessimistic that a sudden change in President would make things better.
1 reply →