It's funny because red storm rising is an old book at this point, but it's pretty accurately shown exactly how conflict with Russia plays out. Even down to Russia realising it is about to run out of diesel... causing it to invade Europe while it still can.
Yes, they're threatening and doing some low-key sabotaging (through third-parties for plausible deniability, which is good for us since we can choose not to respond), but they're shying away from actually killing people through means that might be directly attributed to them (like with a Shahed drone).
I do accept that Russia wants to hurt NATO for our support of Ukraine, but there's a limit to how far they can go.
You think about a frontal attack like in Ukraine, and maybe you're right. But Russia is already waging a much more subtle war against NATO. Look at who's leading the US. Look at Brexit. Or look at who could soon lead France or Germany... Their conventional army may be weak, but they don't need to fire a bullet either.
And if you know your history you'd know that Russia had to pull out of WWI because the country literally ran out of men during the conflict.
Their political influence, even with right-wing politicians who might be skewed their way, will be limited. And could change at any moment as we've seen with Orban.
Russia continued WW1 with a civil war that lasted until 1922. Their military deaths were quite evenly split between the world war stage and the civil war stage.
I wonder where then the millions of soldiers that fought the russian civil war came from.
A) Lots of Russians died during WW2, it wasn’t “evil Russia sends troops from occupied republics to fight for them while Russians sit back”.
B) Lots of mercenaries from post-Soviet republics fight for money on Russias side now
C) Russia didn’t pull out because they’ve run out of men. Where did you get this?
There are a couple of good WWI documentaries on YouTube which you can watch for free. You'll find that C) is the truth.
And the might of the US/UK/etc are a hundred times stronger than the Taliban in Afghanistan, however who ended up winning that war? Or how about Vietnam?
My point being: the size/capability of a military doesn't necessarily result in a win. I think NATO forces have a particular problem of being pretty unmotivated about Ukraine winning.
Conventional military powers sure seem like they were overrated.
Now Russia is one of only two players with years of experience in the latest generation of warfare, while NATO is still stuck in the 20th century.
I suspect when it comes to the production of certain kinds of advanced war materiel, like missiles, shells or drones, Europe lags or doesn't have a clear advantage.
GDP doesn't matter, despite European defense stocks benefiting majorly from the Ukraine war, this didn't seem to have translated into a similar increase in output, which indicates there are bottlenecks in the system somewhere.
You're assuming rational behavior, but time and time again world leaders have demonstrated that they will pursue erratic behavior if their feelings or vibe suggest them that behavior to be their way out of their own trouble.
Russia doesn’t need direct attack on NATO to intimidate, or even destroy the alliance. And even if it did attack NATO member, it is going to be guess what? A discussion. Just like what they have right now. It’s not going to be DEFCON style theatrical attack from the united West on Russia. You know what happens during WW2? When Russia and Germany carved up Poland? Nothing happened when France declared war on Germany. There was a period of 8 months where they just stared at each other. It was called “Phoney war”. Chances are we might witness Russia just steam rolling Baltics while the West talks between each other what to do next.
So the current incident was a preemptive alert by Brussels.
They are struggling to take a couple of villages in Ukraine, why would they invade the EU.
I think an actual invasion would initiate a very serious and deadly response, but their constant pranks will continue to go unpunished (unfortunately).
According to an acquaintance who knows him in real life, he lives in Australia but pretends to post from Moscow.
He has a massive chip on his shoulder about Russia and Putin. He complained about FSB and a Russian company trying to kill him back in the day (see wikileaks cables).
He has no reason to be unbiased.
Responding to a NATO “attack” from Estonia, Putin can pivot to a bigger enemy where of course Russia has to employ universal conscription / nuclear weapons / whatever. The country must unite against this unprovoked western attack, etc, etc.
A single Tomahawk missile could obliterate Moscow which would immediately end the war because Russia is extremely centralized. It's the reason almost 80% of all Russian SAM capability is stationed around the city.
Putin is unpredictable but he's not stupid. You don't become president of Russia by being stupid.
Do you even know how big Moscow is? And nuclear Tomahawks were discontinued. Even if they weren’t, you’d need dozens to obliterate Moscow.
So a lot of their territorial loss can be attributed to his inaction. If they'd laid several million landmines in the Donbass the Russian attack would've been stumped and the occupied Crimea would've been easy prey.
If you mobilize your armed forces and move all your soldiers to the border and dig them in you'll dissuade an attacker from invading.
It used to be much more true. The Biden admin sent a lot more US weapons to fight Russia, Trump used to be much more amenable to send similar weapons provided somebody paid for it.
Nowadays US materiel is either tied up in the middle east or somewhere else (Patriots), or has been neutralized by Russian EW (HIMARS), or the US is just unwilling to part with it for whatever justification.
If nothing else, war has been many times convenient to keep regimes in power (see Bush post 9/11 for an obvious example). Putin might want to strengthen his case. See absurd discussions / push for a "Republic of Narva" as an example cause belli.
https://www.nytimes.com/2022/03/09/opinion/ukraine-russia-in...
A sect of realpolitik theorists outlined why Russia would be compelled to invade Ukraine. Even Kissinger thought that expansion of NATO westward would compel war with Russia. To say no one predicted this or that it’s self-defeating for Russia is a mistake of analysis. The war logically follows from Russia’s security goals.
> The war logically follows from Russia’s security goals.
According to Kozyrev, instead of a patchwork of dysfunctional countries at war with each other like in the former Yugoslavia (with overspilling effects on Russia), EU and NATO integration helped build modern, peaceful and predictable countries in Central and Eastern Europe, which in practical terms meant "free-of-charge security" (his term) for Russia. What's there to complain about?
Furthermore, Mearsheimer et al treat countries as monoliths and completely ignore the competing interests of groups and individuals within them. Russia of the early 1990s was a flawed democracy; today it is a totalitarian dictatorship. The war against Ukraine is a downstream effect of the destruction of Russian democracy and consolidation of absolute power into the hands of Putin's security apparatus gang. Putin wants to be remembered as a "great ruler" and that's all there is to it; a small man who managed to gain absolute power, no different from Hitler.
> Professionals like Kozyrev, who was the minister or foreign affairs of the Russian Federation (1990-1996) and in charge of rebuilding RF's international relations after the disintegration of the USSR, have openly called this bullshit that only manipulated idiots believe, because the "security goals" argument makes no sense whatsoever if you spend more than 10 seconds on it.
Obviously, it’s not just “manipulated idiots” that believe the realpolitik analysis of the causes of the war between Russia and Ukraine.
I had not read Kozyrev but took a look at this article [0] of his from 1995. I think his view is more nuanced than you present here and by the end of the article you can even see his apprehension about how NATO is acting as though Russia is strictly an opponent and not a potential ally. He discusses how this is inciting nationalism in Russia. The argument about free security only makes sense if Russia perceives itself to be within the fold of NATO, which as early as 1995, ostensibly pro-NATO Russians could see they were not.
[0] https://www.jstor.org/stable/e2bc4375-e9ea-3c1f-99f6-d75004d...
No body knows how much petro product Russia is producing or who is buying them. Those diplomatic documents suggest treating simultaneously as a black box and a cornered animal. The financial sanctions actually was a double edged sword considering UK essentially blocked all foreign transactions even for international infrastructure investments Russia made to foreign countries and at the same time from a global perspective UK was not seen as a reliable financial partner. So, Russia is desparate, EU is desparate but they are not allowed to sit in a table to negotiate... Because US will not allow that. If a war happens across EU every party invovled will see this is to be positive thing because for the last decade economies has slowed down and political views has become extremely polarizing. A war at a massive scale brings everyone together for their country and economy jumpstarts.
This is of course a stupid lie they are telling themselves. They've been invading Ukraine since 2014. They had the option of being good international citizens, with an elite flying to the west and buying some football teams for their entertainment, but they chose not to do that.
> Russia is desparate, EU is desparate but they are not allowed to sit in a table to negotiate... Because US will not allow that.
Russia can retreat inside their internationally recognized borders at any time. The problem is they don't want to sue for peace because that would admit losing, and include losing illegally annexed territory. They've made no serious attempts at even starting negotiations with Europe, while escalating "hybrid warfare".
They can't take Kiev but they're threatening Paris.
Because Russian leadership is acting in self interest and preservation and a neverending state of war might be what secures its own position and power.
I'm living in europe and listen to many political news, both domesstic and abroad. And I never heard anyone saying that they actually want to invade "europe", at least not as a hole.
There are analyzers --- but not at EU "establishment" level, whatever that might be --- that claim that Russia, after 4+ year long regeneration phase after the Ukraine war might invade parts of Estonia. Already they started with some hybrid stuff there, with some new "people's republic Narva" drawn out of a magic hat.
Also, there is no need to "reboot" EU manufacturing. For example, Germany had the highest export numbers it ever had in June, 139 billion euro in just one month.
Other than that: Russia is estimated to have lost 1.5 million people already in this "3 day special military operation". No one in his right mind assumes that they can start another thing like now.
They however have gained LOTS of skills on what works and works not, military. E.g. the trickle-in strategies, glide bombs, drone warfare works. A navy without support, tanks and even airspace superiority attempts don't work.
What e.g. german military generals say is: Russia is already in a hybrid conflict (they didn't use "war" as word) with Germany. One can see this by attempts to destabilize the society, by very high level of espionage (said to be higher than during cold war times), to drone reconnaissance jobs over military AND civil infrastructures (logistics, power, railway etc). And by the odd attack on things here, like people or weapon manufacturers.