You're looking at Less Wrong's discussion board. This includes all posts, including those that haven't been promoted to the front page yet. For more information, see About Less Wrong.

Alsadius comments on Open thread, Dec. 1 - Dec. 7, 2014 - Less Wrong Discussion

3 Post author: MrMind 01 December 2014 08:29AM

You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.

Article Navigation

Comments (346)

Tags: open_thread

Comments (346)

Sort By: Best

Show:

You are viewing a single comment's thread. Show more comments above.

Comment author: Alsadius 04 December 2014 05:46:14PM 5 points [-]

Might have, but my money isn't on it. You think Putin cares about treaties? He's a raw-power sort of guy.

And yes, the scenarios are not identical - if nothing else, Russia has many more ICBMs than Hitler did. Still, there's ways to take action that are likely to de-escalate the situation - security guarantees, repositioning military assets, joint exercises, and other ways of drawing a clear line in the sand. We can't kick him out, but we can tell him where the limits are.

(Agreed on your broader point, though - we should ensure we don't draw too many conclusions).

Comment author: ChristianKl 04 December 2014 07:00:26PM 1 point [-]

Might have, but my money isn't on it. You think Putin cares about treaties? He's a raw-power sort of guy.

Putin does care about the fact that Ukraine might join NATO or the EU free trade zone. He probably did feel threatened by what he perceived as a color revolution with a resulting pro-Western Ukrainian government.

At the end of the day Putin doesn't want the crisis to drag on indefinitely so sooner or later it's in Russia's interest to have a settlement. Russia relies on selling it's gas to Europe.

Having the Krim under embargo is quite bad for Russia. It means that it's costly to keep up the economy of the Krim in a way that it's population doesn't think the Krim decayed under Russian rule and there unrest.

On the other hand it's not quite clear the US foreign policy has a problem with dragging out the crisis. It keeps NATO together even through Europeans are annoyed of getting spied at by the US. It makes it defensibly to have foreign miltary bases inside Germany that spy on Germans.

Still, there's ways to take action that are likely to de-escalate the situation - security guarantees, repositioning military assets, joint exercises, and other ways of drawing a clear line in the sand. We can't kick him out, but we can tell him where the limits are.

Do you really think joint exercises contribute to deescalation?

As far as repositioning military assets goes, placing NATO assets inside Ukraine is the opposite of deescalation.

The only real way to descalate is a diplomatic solution and there probably isn't one without affirming Crimea as part of Russia.

Comment author: Alsadius 04 December 2014 07:34:09PM 3 points [-]

There's a certain type of leader, over-represented among strongmen, that will push as far as they think they can and stop when they can't any more. They don't care about diplomacy or treaties, they care about what they can get away with. I think Putin is one of those - weak in most meaningful ways, but strong in will and very willing to exploit our weakness in same. The way to stop someone like that is with strength. Russia simply can't throw down, so if we tell them that they'd have to do so to get anywhere, they'd back off.

Of course, we need to be sure we don't push too far - they can still destroy the world, after all - but Putin is sane, and doesn't have any desire to do anything nearly so dramatic.

Comment author: ChristianKl 04 December 2014 10:28:15PM 0 points [-]

I think Putin is one of those - weak in most meaningful ways, but strong in will and very willing to exploit our weakness in same.

Putting gains inner politcs strength from the conflict.

The way to stop someone like that is with strength.

That assumes that you can simply change from being weak to being strong. In poker you can do this as bluffing. In Chess you can't. You actually have to calculate your moves.

Holding joint military exercises isn't strength if you aren't willing to use the military to fight.

Bailing out European countries is expensive enough. There not really the money to additionally prop up Ukraine.

Comment author: Alsadius 04 December 2014 10:42:47PM 2 points [-]

Putting gains inner politcs strength from the conflict.

Only as long as he's winning.

That assumes that you can simply change from being weak to being strong.

NATO is, far and away, the strongest military alliance that has ever existed. They have the ability to be strong. When the missing element is willpower, "Man up, already!" is perfectly viable strategic advice.

Comment author: ChristianKl comment score below threshold [+] (37 children)

Comment author: Alsadius 05 December 2014 01:42:15AM 4 points [-]

That's probably why ISIS is still alive despite years of US troops in Iraq.

The US crushed ISIS(then called AQI) back during the Bush years - it took a while, and a change of strategy, but they were completely demolished. When the troops left, ISIS came back.

How would you imagine a scenario in which Putin overtly losing in Ukraine? How would it look like?

At this point, a complete loss is impossible. We can't push him out of Crimea in any plausible way. Support for the Ukrainian military to keep the eastern bits of the country from being overrun could work. But the real move here is stationing a bunch of military hardware in the Baltics, adding whatever is left of Ukraine to NATO, seeing if we can carve Belarus out of his sphere of influence, re-starting ballistic missile defense programs and deploying them in real quantity, and getting the Europeans to start fracking already so they're not so dependent on Putin's goodwill.

Comment author: Viliam_Bur 05 December 2014 12:16:34PM * 3 points [-]

Yes. Ukraine is not an isolated data point. There is a recent history of Russia attacking its different neighbors, which would make me bet that the future will be similar.

It's not merely "What to do about Crimea?" but also "Who is next (and what to do about them while we can, while the Russian army is not there yet)?". If my country had borders with Russia, I would consider fortifying those borders a #1 national priority. I would probably destroy as much roads and railways across the border as would be economically possible. But that's only passive defense.

Comment author: skeptical_lurker 05 December 2014 04:17:22PM 0 points [-]

I would probably destroy as much roads and railways across the border as would be economically possible.

I don't think this helps all that much (tanks can travel over rough terrain) and has high economic costs. Better to mine the infrastructure, and detonate the mines when a train carrying enemy soldiers passes over it.

Comment author: Nornagest 05 December 2014 10:10:46PM * 1 point [-]

Modern tanks are pretty capable cross-country, but they have a long supply tail. An Abrams tank (which, to be fair, is more of a gas-guzzler than average owing to its high weight and its cool-but-questionably-practical turbine engine) gets about half a mile to the gallon and has a nominal range of a bit under 300 miles, which overstates its operational range because warfare tends to involve a lot of waiting and a lot of local maneuvering.

Strategically, you can only move armor as fast as the trucks or railroad cars carrying fuel, food, and ammunition, and that means that roads, rails, and bridges remain important. (A bit less so if you're somewhere like Iraq, though, where you've got lots of open, hard-surfaced desert to work with.)

continue this thread »

Comment author: Lumifer 05 December 2014 04:12:30PM 0 points [-]

If my country had borders with Russia, I would consider fortifying those borders a #1 national priority. I would probably destroy as much roads and railways across the border as would be economically possible.

That seems... excessive (and pretty useless). Do you actually believe that, say, Finland should do this now?

Comment author: Viliam_Bur 06 December 2014 12:31:06PM * 3 points [-]

This is the situation where it could be useful to have a prediction market for "which country will be next invaded by Russia?". I don't have high confidence for my predictions here.

My guess is merely: within 10 years, Russia will invade another country, one they share a border with. But I'm not sure which one.

Finland seems like an interesting target: it is a EU member, but not a NATO member. NATO has weapons, EU has rationalizations why not doing anything is the wisest policy ever.

On the other hand, there are former Soviet Union countries where Russia can use the excuse "they belonged to us historically anyway, and there is our minority we have to protect". I don't know how important each of these factors is for Russia when deciding its next target.

Comment author: skeptical_lurker 05 December 2014 04:51:29PM * -1 points [-]

NATO has far higher military expenditure than Russia. I think if nukes were out of the picture then retaking the Crimea would be a possibility. But this is unlikely because the main objective has to be preventing nuclear war, and the more we escalate, the more likely it is that nukes will be used by accident if nothing else. For this reason its probably a good idea not to add the Ukraine to NATO - its simply not worth the risk to get involved.

Ballistic missile defence stops mutually assured destruction, and so gives ones enemies an incentive to strike first before the defence can be completed. I'm not saying Putin would launch a first strike, but it still seems needlessly antagonising even if its technologically feasible.

Finally, couldn't we do without fracking by using nuclear power?

Comment author: Alsadius 05 December 2014 08:18:52PM 1 point [-]

1) Adding Ukraine to NATO is iffy - their politics are so conflicted that it'd be tough to guarantee they join, or that they stay, and we don't want them thinking we're as bad as the Russians. But an offer should be made. And yes, nukes are the reason we can't squish Russia like a bug(well, that and morality).

2) Doesn't need to be deployed tomorrow, or deployed publicly. Step up R+D, at a minimum, though.

3) Longer lead time, higher capital costs, and electricity-fuelled transport is still in its infancy(other than trains, but not even Europe runs on trains alone). Also, Europe(bar France) is about as anti-nuclear as they are anti-fracking, so I don't see any obvious gains in political viability here.

Comment author: skeptical_lurker 06 December 2014 10:06:08AM 0 points [-]

1) Why should we let the Ukraine join NATO? It escalates us towards a war against Russia, and really if we wanted the Ukraine to join then the offer would have been made before the war started.

2) I'd guess that something with the complexity of a ballistic missile shield probably can't be kept secret. For instance, if you were going the 'star wars' route and sticking weapons in space, then the Russians are going to wonder what all these new satellites being launched are for. I suppose you could disguise them as spy satellites, but its still a clue that something's going on.

3) Isn't Russia exporting gas rather than oil? In which case it is being used for heating and power rather than transport.

continue this thread »

Comment author: Lumifer 05 December 2014 05:05:05PM -1 points [-]

NATO has far higher military expenditure than Russia.

US does. European military isn't particularly large or capable.

I think if nukes were out of the picture then retaking the Crimea would be a possibility.

Sigh. Do the words "land war in Asia" ring any bells? (yes, I know that Crimea is technically in Europe)

Comment author: Salemicus 05 December 2014 05:33:56PM 3 points [-]

Some "land wars in Asia" are successful. For example, Germany successfully conquered Russia in 1917. Even more relevantly, Poland ejected the Russians from large parts of the Ukraine in 1921. I think the saying gets its popularity from a very superficial reading of history. Yes, Napoleon and Hitler famously came a cropper, but there have been plenty of successes.

continue this thread »

Comment author: Alsadius 05 December 2014 08:20:46PM 1 point [-]

European militaries are extremely capable, for the most part - pound for pound, they're almost as good as the US. They just have a lot fewer pounds.

And historically, land wars in Asia haven't been a big deal. That's a Vietnam-era myth - WW2 involved a lot of Asian land warring, and that went pretty okay.

continue this thread »

Comment author: skeptical_lurker 05 December 2014 05:22:47PM 1 point [-]

US does. European military isn't particularly large or capable.

http://www.globalfirepower.com/ says that the UK, France and Germany are the 5th-7th most powerful countries respectively. UK tanks are probably the most powerful in the world, based on the idea that whoever shoots first wins (at least when you're firing depleted uranium rounds that can punch straight through a tank), and the UK holds the record for longest distance tank-on-tank kill.

The US alone has over 8x the defence budget. The UK, France and Germany together have almost twice the defence budget.

Sigh. Do the words "land war in Asia" ring any bells?

Yes... this is because Asia is very big, and armies can freeze on the way to Moscow. But the Crimea isn't that big.

continue this thread »

Comment author: IlyaShpitser 05 December 2014 08:44:39PM * 1 point [-]

Nobody in Europe is willing to freeze in the winter because there no gas to heat his home.

I agree, Europe displayed a remarkable degree of moral cowardice. It is literally "we don't want to deal with a predator on our doorstep because we don't want to be cold."

The scenario where Putin loses in Ukraine is Russia being so screwed up by serious sanctions that there is regime change to something more moderate. But, as was well-covered elsewhere, the West lacks both the coordination and the moral spine to do serious sanctions.

Russia lost the Cold War, remember, because it did not have a functioning economy to stand on its own and compete in e.g. military spending against the West. It still does not.

Comment author: ChristianKl 06 December 2014 01:48:17AM 1 point [-]

The scenario where Putin loses in Ukraine is Russia being so screwed up by serious sanctions that there is regime change to something more moderate.

Sanction hurt both parties.

They also allow Putin to steal assets from Western countries that are located in Russia. The don't create moderation but basically make political life for every moderate in Russia harder.

But, as was well-covered elsewhere, the West lacks both the coordination and the moral spine to do serious sanctions.

I'm not sure whether from a moral perspective the kind of resources it would take are a good bargain. The task for a moral imperative to do something in a situation like Darfur is much higher than Crimea.

Russia lost the Cold War, remember, because it did not have a functioning economy to stand on its own and compete in e.g. military spending against the West.

At present when Western states are at the brink of declaring bankruptcy the Western strength is different than it was at the end of the cold war.

Alsadius comments on Open thread, Dec. 1 - Dec. 7, 2014 - Less Wrong Discussion

Article Navigation

Comments (346)

Nearest Meetups

Virtual Study Room

Recent Comments

Recent Posts

Recent Open Threads

Recent Rationality Diaries

Recent Wiki Edits

Top Contributors, 30 Days

Recent Karma Awards

Comments (346)

Top Contributors, 30 Days

You'll need to login or register to do that

(Don't worry, it only takes a few seconds)

Create

Login