[Epistemic status: My best analysis from purely public sources on a constantly changing conflict in an actively adversarial epistemic environment. I have no special knowledge or expertise.] This is a linkpost for this post by Justin Bronk, a research fellow at RUSI, a British conflict analysis think-tank. ~7 minute read....
If anyone here is in trouble of any kind, and finds themselves in Sweden with no place to stay, or in need of other help, I want to help you. Send me an email at johan.domeij@gmail.com for further contact. I am posting this now due to the ongoing conflict in...
No, I think Zvi meant that Ukraine isn't paying Russian soldiers enough money for defecting.
On the prize of fertilizer, Peter Zeihan explained on Feb 15 that "Russia and Belarus are the worlds second and fourth largest suppliers of potash. Nitrogen fertilizer is disappearing because of what is going on in energy markets. Phosphate fertilizer is disappearing because of what is going on in China. And if this war happens [this was on Feb 15], potash fertilizer globally has a shortages as well."
Peter Zeihan is prone to hyperbole and overstatement in pursuit of clarity. I have no problem with this, but it should be labeled as such.
More typos:
Cumulation --> Culmination x2
I don't have anything to say just.... Know that the world is with you.
Don't blame yourself for what you can't do. Rarely is the question of who to blame so simple.
I shall! Thank you :)
You interpret that as being specifically a warning against overt deployment of troops to Ukraine?
I think it was deliberately vague. This allows Putin room to choose his response due to exact later consequences, without being bound to his own word. The way NATO is interpreting it sure seems to be that weapons are ok but troops are not, and Putin has accepted that, with only some non-committal grumbling. I think the fact that NATO was already providing that before the invasion makes a strong "status quo" argument. Also it has historically counted as "not participating", however ridiculous and arbitrary this may seem. Scott Alexander wrote more on this.
... (read more)While at the outset I
I'd rather see counterpoints to my arguments than blanket assertions
My apologies. I found myself convinced of these very points after reading the article, but I can see now how my words could come across as standoffish. No insult intended :)
Failure to perform the fait accompli means that options other than nuclear retaliation are possible.
My reading of both the text quoted and reality as presented, is that this line of thinking only applies when operating inside or very close to the opponents red lines. The next paragraph starts:
... (read 767 more words →)Avoiding this problem is why NATO is structured the way it is: promising a maximum response for any violation, however slight, of the territory of any
Thank you :)
See also this much more in-depth and well researched analysis of nuclear deterrence in general, and how it applies to the situation in Ukraine in particular. And this other post by the same author posted on the day of the invasion, already then presenting a picture clearer than I hold now.
Did you read the linked article? It argues extensively and precisely why what you suggest is not something that NATO can risk.
It is a total war for Ukraine, not for Russia. And even less for NATO.
No one doubts that NATO could obliterate Russia's conventional forces, if it were guaranteed not to escalate beyond conventional warfare. Putin knows that too. Which is precisely why he couldn't and wouldn't leave any such guarantee.
[Epistemic status: My best analysis from purely public sources on a constantly changing conflict in an actively adversarial epistemic environment. I have no special knowledge or expertise.]
This is a linkpost for this post by Justin Bronk, a research fellow at RUSI, a British conflict analysis think-tank. ~7 minute read. It is some of the most clearheaded and enlightening analysis I have seen so far of the current geopolitical situation in regards to Ukraine and the line the West is walking. The first part talks about the military arguments, and is more detailed but mostly in line with the mainstream commentary; it's the second part, on the political arguments, that is really insightful.... (read 779 more words →)
If anyone here is in trouble of any kind, and finds themselves in Sweden with no place to stay, or in need of other help, I want to help you. Send me an email at johan.domeij@gmail.com for further contact.
I am posting this now due to the ongoing conflict in Ukraine, but the offer is not limited to that conflict. I am not able to give significant financial support, but I have a car and a place to stay for several people.
Hmm, I didn't know about that, thanks for the tip. Very busy right now, and moving shortly anyway, but I'll look into it in a while :)