Posted on 03/20/2022 7:09:22 PM PDT by Zhang Fei
Discussion on the potential deescalation of the war in Ukraine with all security implications it has illustrates the difference between the goal- oriented and the system-oriented thinking
For example if you want to deescalate the war in Ukraine, what would your best strategy be? Goal-oriented people understand that the only person who could stop the war immediately is Putin himself. Thus they suggest focusing on negotiations with him and persuading him to back off
Sounds reasonable. And yet, this approach ignores the factor of human will. And goal-oriented people lowkey admit it. For example, when justifying Putin's actions they often point out that it was wrong for the West to "provoke a bear". They strip the other side of any agency
That's exactly the problem with the goal-oriented approach. This line of reasoning when applied to the human conflicts completely ignores the agency. Russia is not a "bear", China is not a "dragon", the same way the US is not an "eagle". Their policies are designed by humans
Paradox of the goal-oriented approach. Very often when you want to stop a dangerous situation, you assume you need to negotiate with the only person who has the power to stop it immediately Unfortunately, that only person who can stop it, is usually the one who manufactured it
Humans have agency and agency works both ways. They can choose to deescalate but they can also choose to escalate. Acting on assumption that everyone around you wants peace and partnership is insane. To make a correct choice you need to figure out which choice the other side made
Since he started consolidating his rule in 1999, Putin has been always manufacturing conflicts artificially. Chechnya, Georgia, Syria. Each time he claimed he needs to defend "security" of Russia, which was difficult to object to. Everyone agrees Russia has the right to be secure
The conflict in Ukraine is also artificial, manufactured. It started with the "little green men" taking over Crimea in 2014. It continued with FSB colonel crossing the border to launch the Russian insurgency. It continued with Russia funding and arming irredentists in Ukraine
It culminated with Russia launching the war of conquest in 2022. It's delusionary to view Putin as a neutral side here. It's also delusionary to describe him as "a side of the conflict". He is not *a* side. He's *the* one who manufactured this conflict in the first place
This conflict manufacturing strategy backfired on Putin. Russians are shocked by resistance they are now facing in the Russophone East Ukraine. Russians believed it would just switch to them immediately. After all, it voted for pro-Russian candidates on every election till 2014
What happened? How Kharkiv which used to be culturally and politically pro-Russian so quickly turned super anti-Russian? It's a huge cultural change and a very recent one. And the answer would be: Putin's conflict manufacturing strategy killed pro-Russian sentiments in Ukraine
When Putin manufactured the Donbass War he presented it as an Ukrainian inner conflict. Many in Russia bought it. Many in the West bought it. Many idiots even now talk about "Ukraine shelling civilians of Donbass for eight years". Bad Ukrainians being bad, that caused the war
Nobody in Ukraine bought it. Russians and Westerners considered the Donbass catastrophe as a Ukrainian problem. In Ukraine however, it was seen as a Russian problem. Donbass was simply a part of Ukraine which fall under the Russian rule and its nightmare was purely Russian-made
Putin didn't think about it. He as usually manufactured a Donbass war to later come out as a saviour, do everything he wants to do, collect a payout and be showered in gratitude and public love. But in Ukraine he was seen as the one who created this war in the first place
Nothing de-russified East Ukraine so quickly and irreversibly as the Donbass catastrophe. I'm not talking about the war, I'm talking about a general socio-economic conditions there. Under Russian control, Donbass fall under the rule of the criminal gangs, presented as the "levy"
They were usually guys from below the social hierarchy who saw this war as a chance to rise up. And they did. With their power unchecked, they started systematic plunder. Take people's homes, cars, businesses, kill those who object. Arrest someone, torture and release for ransom
It's not only how much these guys stole, it's how much they destroyed. If a normal Russian bureaucrat might destroy 10 rubles of value to steal 1, these guys would destroy 10 000. They destroyed Donbass economy, inflicted the socio-economic collapse and humanitarian catastrophe
With economy destroyed, and few opportunities for employment remaining, many locals, twenty-five-thousanders, joined this "levy" for 25 000 rubles a month paycheck. Russians paid them about 400 usd per month just to keep the war going on. It all turned into a vicious circle
You could sell this Donbass catastrophe as a Ukrainian problem to Russians or to the Westerners. But it was impossible to present it as such to the Ukrainians. People in Kharkiv, Sumy, Mariupol saw that nothing comparable is happening on territories under the Ukrainian control
East Ukrainians saw that the Russian-controlled zone turned into a nightmare with warlord gangs robbing, killing and torturing. With no protection and no security. With no employment either, because businesses were destroyed by pro-Russian warlords. You could join them or starve
Putin manufactured Donbass conflict and exacerbated it to later come out as the saviour. But he didn't consider that Ukrainians have agency, too. For the East Ukraine Russian control was associated with Donbass, and Russian invasion would mean turning them into the Donbass
Extremely tough Ukrainian resistance against superior Russian forces is understandable only in this context. East Ukraine doesn't believe Putin will "save" them. They saw what's happening on territories he captured and are fighting hard to avoid the same scenario on their land
Putin's conflict manufacturing strategy irreversibly de-Russified East Ukraine. Whatever pro-Russian sentiments existed there, are gone now. Ties with Russian kins over the border severed. Donbass War triggered this process and Z-invasion completed it. Russian Ukraine is no more
Conflicts are initiated by humans. Humans have agency. They may use it to escalate or to deescalate. Analysts know that Putin could deescalate this war. They miss however that he is the one who manufactured it. That conflict manufacturing has been his constant strategy since 1999
The constant cycle of Putin's policy has been:
1. Manufacture a conflict
2. Escalate, exacerbate
3. Come out as the saviour, collect payout
4. Scale up
So far it has worked perfectly. Why? Because the other side never escalated it
Agency works both ways. If Putin knows the West is determined to always and ever deescalate, always seek for compromise, it means his policy is working perfectly, why change it? So he repeats and scales up. And every time you'll have to deal with larger conflict he manufactured
Putin's strategy is similar to Hitler's. Hitler also manufactured conflicts referring to the historical rights & security. Every time the West deescalated to buy peace. But with all their concessions they bought the World War, cuz Hitler would scale up after each successful cycle
Putin's policy is entirely based on assumption that the West will avoid the escalation. Ergo. It was a mistake to assure him of it in the first place. Paradoxically, it may sound for goal-oriented people, it makes total sense from the perspective of a system-oriented approach
Goal-oriented people think that if you want peace with Putin, you MUST make him absolutely 100% sure of your peaceful intentions. Assure him you'll never ever escalate, never strike back, never make him feel in danger. That's how you achieve peace under the goal-oriented paradigm
In the system-oriented paradigm it works exactly the other way around. The other side has agency, too. They are not stupid. They know you have much superior resources and the only reason they behave such recklessly is that you assured them you'll never ever use the force you have
Under the goal-oriented paradigm, the route for deescalation would be make Putin feel as safe as possible. Under the system-oriented, the other way around. After each successful cycle he scales up, so you must break the cycle.
But if you get on a big losing streak the necessary bet will eventually exceed your remaining # of chips.
Putin is like a lucky gambler who has been playing this strategy for 20 years and he has never lost yet. So he comes to the Casino Ukraina confident that this is just going to be one more big night for him, just like that time at the Hotel Crimea – he’s still talking about that one 8 years later. His friends at the casino have assured him that they have marked the deck and the dealer is in on it and he’s gonna break the bank.
But this time the cards are not running in his favor. His friends have lied – the fix is not in. In fact the dealer is onto his scam and keeps bringing out new packs of cards. Putin is still furiously doubling down – he hasn’t gone bust yet. He’s getting red faced and angry and is starting to mumble about how he has been double crossed and he still has a big bankroll (but then when it checks it, half the roll has disappeared – did his pocket get picked? ) He tries his credit cards but they are refused. He calls up his Chinese buddy to bring more cash but Ji Pin Xing (or whatever his name is) doesn’t answer his phone. Looks like its gonna be a bad night for Vlad. Will our boy make it? Tune in to find out.
Our main longshot hope is that someone or some group in Russia forces regime change, because it isn't happening in Washington.
You’re going to anger the resident Putin fan bois.
The numbers back you up, Putin can wage war in Ukraine indefinitely.
Putin’s winning streak is at an end. He keeps putting the nuclear card on the table and as he keeps doing this the odds of someone in his inner circle killing him rises.
Putin might be okay gambling with Russia’s future but not everyone in Russia is good with this.
One of the effects of the current war in Ukraine is that a lot of smaller countries are no longer impressed by the claims of ‘Russian military might’ when dreadfully overmatched Ukraine has been kicking the Russian bear in its balls the past few weeks.
Putin’s war has exposed the weaknesses, corruption, and arrogance of the Russian military. The men marched to war with food that expired years and years ago. Brittle tires have failed. Infantry troops are hiding in vehicles and dying in them. Russian air power is nearly absent from this war due to the effectiveness of Ukrainian anti-air fire. Their navy proved it can sink defenseless cargo ships but they’re outmatched by shore based MRL trucks. God help them if they get close enough to take fire from anti-tank missiles.
I say all of that because Russia’s greatest enemy is watching and that’s China. I’ve been saying all along that now is a great time for China to move on Siberia. Actually, every passing day makes Siberia easier and easier for China to take back.
Speculation aside, this war has made Russia demonstrably weaker than it was prior to the war.
Putin has failed Russia.
I’d argue the analogy might be closer to the situations below, if Zelensky’s generals manage to pull off a conventional victory:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polish%E2%80%93Soviet_War_in_1920
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Winter_War
My sense is that Biden will drag his heels on any aid to Ukraine to the extent he can. Both parties are on his case, so he can’t outright zero out the aid. Troops on the ground would be a no-no for this Putin lapdog, though.
Yanukovich ran to Moscow because he was Putin’s man. Who was Yanukovich’s man, who left Ukraine when Yanukovich scuttled away to his master in Russia? Zlochevsky, who *co-incidentally* owned Burisma, the outfit that bribed Biden through Hunter.
Why hasn’t the media made the connection? For the same reason it’s completely uninterested in Hunter Biden’s laptop.
[I say all of that because Russia’s greatest enemy is watching and that’s China. I’ve been saying all along that now is a great time for China to move on Siberia. Actually, every passing day makes Siberia easier and easier for China to take back.]
Russia shelling Kiev now.
That’s a chart of money that’s locked up in Western banks. And $20 billion doesn’t buy a trained military. And that’s what is needed to conquer Ukraine right now is old fashioned boots on the ground with competent officers who listen to competent NCOs.
Russia has none of these.
Very interesting.
I watched Colonel MacGregor talk about a prospective invasion shortly back in January. One of his predictions was that eastern Ukraine would fall quickly as the people there would rise for the Russians, so the Russians would have a very rapid advance to the Dnieper and western Ukraine. That prediction very clearly did not come true.
Putin has guarantees that for decades, the vast majority of Russians regardless of ethnicity are going to absolutely hate Russia itself.
Excellent summation.
Weather this can be stopped is the question.
A study of history would indicate not.
What is WITH all these N00bs, reciting he precise globaloid, swampy, Schwab/Soros, MSM talking points...to a tee.
What slime puddle are you fkrs slithering in from?
The only question that matters in your scenario is...does he have 100% control of his nukes. If he does not, the have at the guy...if he does... you need to break his nuclear chain first. Otherwise you are playing with thermonuclear war if you shoot and miss.
The escalation to using hypersonic weapons is a scare tactic that smells of desperation. Limited Western intervention with a viable peace proposal that throws Putin a bone like recognition of Crimea would make it plain he won't be allowed to win and still provide him a peer with which to negotiate and a "golden bridge" to back down on. As it is, there is real risk of unplanned escalation, either by Putin or by a NATO member such as Poland.
Those revenues have to pay not just for the items ordinary Russians need on a daily basis, but also for the massive additional expenditures for the war. I question how long Russians will be willing to do that.
It's also worth noting that Russia never really did defeat Chechnya, which is more than twenty times smaller than Ukraine. They ended up signing a peace treaty that left the Chechens with a lot of autonomy.
The Russian tolerance for dead Russian soldiers is not unlimited.
Russia literally cannot defeat Ukraine if you Ukraine is unwilling to surrender. They don’t have anywhere near the number of troops required.
Actually, every passing day makes Siberia easier and easier for China to take back.
Every reinforcement Russia makes to the East makes
Siberia easier for the Chinese who need those natural
resources, and they have lots of settlers who would
like free land.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.