Russia's Only “Winning Move”

https://www.usni.org/magazines/proceedings/2022/february/russias-only-winning-move

by graderjs • 4 years ago

18 121 4 years ago

usni.org

scrubs• 4 years ago

Good article. I agree.

hbrn20• 4 years ago

While I agree with the suggested rules, the thought process in this article has a major flaw:

It assumes all players are rational.

In Russia's case, this might not be the case. They don't necessarily want the best outcome for them. They want to show the rest of the world who's boss, or die trying.

0x445442• 4 years ago

If you replace Russia with USA, your statement is spot on.

hackinthebochs24• 4 years ago

They don't necessarily want the best outcome for them.

It is self-serving and dangerous to ascribe irrationality to behavior that is out of the norm from our perspective. The problem is that in many cases, what we deem as irrational behavior is simply behavior predicated from different beliefs or different values. How Putin evaluates different outcomes for Russia is likely to be very different than that from a western context. Our strategy to avoid a nuclear war must be in light of our assessment of his beliefs and values, and an analysis of how he will maximize Russia's outcome from that perspective.

If our policy is one of complete Russian retreat, and we reason from our context that escalating to nuclear weapons to secure victory is irrational, we're all but assuring an eventual nuclear confrontation with Russia. The only way to surely avoid nuclear war is to allow Russia an avenue to some kind of victory in Ukraine using only conventional weapons. We want to severely raise the cost of this victory, but at the same time we should accept the outcome if Russia is willing to pay it. If our policy is such that the choice is left to Russia to either go nuclear or completely withdraw, it will just represent the complete recklessness that our policy towards Russia continues to be.

wrp• 4 years ago

How Putin evaluates different outcomes for Russia is likely to be very different than that from a western context.

Few people aside from area experts are aware that Saddam Hussein thought that he won Gulf War 1. In his world, when a ruler loses a war, he is deposed and probably killed. He faced a war with the world's most powerful forces and emerged alive and in power. Therefore, he won.

The portrayal of Putin and the Kremlin in general by Western government and media is based on caricature. Since the war began, Kremlinologists trying to give a more nuanced view are shouted down.

JustLurking20223• 4 years ago

Nah, no need to leave them even the slightest morsel of victory. Just look at Afghanistan - both of the world's two largest nuclear militaries have invaded, both left in defeat, and both realized that escalating to nuclear weapons would cause them more harm than good.

If Russia dropped a tactical nuke, the U.S. would have to retaliate with one as well to make it clear that we are willing to. Letting them doubt our deterrence capability would be even more risky, and they know that.

libertine6• 4 years ago

If our policy is such that the choice is left to Russia to either go nuclear or completely withdraw, it will just represent the complete recklessness that our policy towards Russia continues to be.

If complete withdraw is off the table, then the game is every 10 or so years we will go through this cycle of land grabs by Russia, backed by historical revisionism and nuclear weapons - even with bad results in conventional warfare.

This started with 1 region in Georgia 2008, it's 2022 and i's already a total of 4 HUGE regions - with the promise of more in Ukraine and Moldova.

Where and when will it stop?

hbrn20• 4 years ago

It's semantics at this point. Sure, given russian values, their preference to feel proud trumps life expectancy, healthcare, wealth, technological progress, ability to travel, etc. Being misinformed and brainwashed doesn't make you rational in your delusions.

The only way to surely avoid nuclear war is to allow Russia an avenue to some kind of victory in Ukraine

It's easy to think that when you're thousands of miles away from Russia. But there's a reason top supporters of Ukraine (in terms of GDP) are Poland, Latvia, Estonia, Lithuania, Czech Republic and so on.

It is not the first expansionist war Russia has started. Any "victory" Russia gains means that next war is inevitable. Hell, this is their 3rd expansion into Ukraine, and every single time they claimed it was their last. And every single time they went a little bit further than the last.

If you believe they will stop after they're done with Ukraine, that's just wishful thinking.

attentive2• 4 years ago

The only way to surely avoid nuclear war is to allow Russia an avenue to some kind of victory in Ukraine using only conventional weapons.

That's just ruzzia propaganda parroted by their apologists all over the world. You can't get raped "a little". And be assured that ruzzia won't stop. Any concessions will only embolden them to go further to other countries. Now with the resources and people of the concurred territories. If ruzzia succeed in ANY blackmail it will keep doing it because obviously EU and US are weak. That is until it's stopped. Might as well stop them now. Just look at Crimea they occupied for 8 years, did it stop them?

SanjayMehta• 4 years ago

I stopped reading it after I saw the usual trope of "rules based."

The problem with NATO is that they can't comprehend the other sides have their own rules.

yuan43• 4 years ago

If the United States adheres to these five rules, it can demonstrate to Russia that the costs and likelihood of losing are so high, the only winning move is not to play.

Depressing to see that this is the kind of crap former US military are putting out.

The situation is so far beyond these trite five rules as to be laughable if it weren't so deadly serious. This was the case even in Feb 2022. Everything the author claims the US should be doing is something Russia is doing.

There are no new insights here, just a strong undercurrent of US exceptionalism. Exactly the kind of garbage Russia is feeding to its people.

Nowhere does the author explain the consequences for Russia of leaving Ukraine. How can withdrawal be a winning move if the author doesn't even know what that move leads to?

robotresearcher2• 4 years ago

The article promotes the opposite of exceptionalism.

if it expects fair arbitration, the United States must ascribe to the rules it proclaims: For example, it cannot cry foul over Russian threats to freedom of navigation while remaining a nonsignatory to the U.N. Convention on the Law of the Sea. Instead of flaunting exceptionalism and decrying these institutions’ irreconcilable problems, it must advance their credibility and authority. When necessary to withdraw from a commitment, the United States must state its intentions early and provide justification to avoid the perception that it too shirks the rules. Rule-breaking must bear a cost.

libertine6• 4 years ago

Nowhere does the author explain the consequences for Russia of leaving Ukraine. How can withdrawal be a winning move if the author doesn't even know what that move leads to?

The article does say that there are costs to this game, and breaking rules should be in itself a cost.

If the goal of the game is to stop playing the game - peace - then the consequences must be lesser than the cost of continuing playing the game.

yrgulation4• 4 years ago

At this stage it’s nearly guaranteed that at least small tactical nukes will be used in ukraine. There is a small chance they will not but just in case if you live in the region have iodine pills at hand. I hope I am wrong but there is good chance at least an accident will happen.

arein3• 4 years ago

Do small tactical nukes exist?

The possibility is very low, why do you think is nearly guaranteed?

robotresearcher2• 4 years ago

They’ve been demonstrated several times. Why do you believe they don’t exist?

This article estimates about 500 low yield US gravity bombs and 2,000 unspecified Russian weapons exist.

https://www.ucsusa.org/resources/tactical-nuclear-weapons

hyperman1• 4 years ago

The way I see it: Right now, Russia is losing terrain and initiative too hard, too fast. IF Russia keeps losing, Putin is dead, and he knows it. If he's desperate enough, he can't lose much more by nuking something big enough to make it clear he dares, but small enough not to start a complete nuclear escalation. That's a very thin line to walk.

yrgulation4• 4 years ago

Now that territories are “officially” part of russia putin can claim the country itself is under attack. Apparently that’s the only “legal” way he can use nukes. Given that his army is in shambles and there’s mounting pressure at home due to conscriptions, he’ll want a quick end. He cant get one without too many casualties on russia’s side since ukraine is doing rather well. I mean how can he accept defeat? It would not just be his own demise but also russia’s as it would look weak among countries with similar political systems. Plus he keeps selling this conflict as an existential threat to everything russian (he wrongfully claims their very way of life is under threat - this is not something you retract at short notice meaning he wants to play the long game). Ukraine cant retreat either.

So the only logical conclusion at the moment is that for russia to get out of this and still look like an actual power it needs to do something that stuns the rest of the world into backing off and potentially even retreating from some nato territory. And unless his new recruits pull some magic trick the only option left is the nuclear option.

graderjs6• 4 years ago

Does drinking poviodine solution give same effect?

chinabot• 4 years ago

While I am actually reassured by this that some US Military leaders are not just jarheads, the solution, unfortunately, is not with the US being the world policeman or rest of the world but with the Russian People to recognise the lies being told, shake off the nationalistic crap being spouted and Remove Putin.

sacrosancty• 4 years ago

It could also be solved by Ukranian people doing a similar thing. The eastern parts of Ukraine are hardly even Ukraine anyway. Borders are malleable. Just do a bit of surrender to end the war.

throwawaymaths• 4 years ago

What does that even mean. There are tons of ethically Russian people -- at least four that I know of in my extended social circle, one of whom has already died -- proudly claim Ukrainian nationality (if not ethnicity) and were among the first to take up arms and volunteer to fight against Russia.

If borders are malleable so too are ethnicity and nationality malleable.

hbrn20• 4 years ago

Borders are malleable is an incredibly naive, if not malicious thing to say.

Kenyan ambassador explained it really well: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ofijY6M-OA8

rasz2• 4 years ago

There is a lot of surrender already happening in those part already. Mostly by homeless drunk bums in russian military uniforms living in woodland encampments.

https://twitter.com/666_mancer/status/1574754437335318529

rasz2• 4 years ago

Wont happen. Current protests in russia are not against the war. Those protests are about mobilizing "the wrong people". Me, my son, my employees, smart young people from wealthy big cities, how dare you! Beloved leader said it wouldnt happen, said it was limited, no students, no essential workers, those bad bad men surrounding our great leader are clearly traitors or incompetent! Russians are ok with mobilization and war as long as its somebody else thrown into the meat grinder and all they hear about are successes on TV, or at the very least HD footage of some Mall being blown up by supersonic cruise missile.

twoquestions2• 4 years ago

This is from February of 2022, and we've had significant changes on the ground since then.

For a more detailed look at what's been going on, ISW has some fairly fact-based reporting on the situation.

https://understandingwar.org/backgrounder/russian-offensive-...

I find it more than a little funny that they're failing to conceal their obvious contempt for Russian incompetence in the last couple months, at the beginning of the war they were as neutral as one can get.

yucky5• 4 years ago

Keep in mind the ISW is literally a neocon think tank with Bill Kristol on the Board and leading the charge as Director. For anybody who doesn't know, Bill Kristol is perhaps the biggest warmonger alive, next to Kissinger. He is the neocon kingmaker.

Understandingwar.org should be viewed only through the lens that these are the same people who were cheerleading the 20 year debacles in Iraq and Afghanistan.

twoquestions2• 4 years ago

Ah, good to know, thanks for the heads up.

graderjs6• 4 years ago

Fascinating discussion, thank you everyone! :)

I didn't expect to see this level of sophisticated critical engagement.

rtwrtwer542• 4 years ago

I think the article is naive in the sense that NATO has done everything in its hands to steer and asure everyone in the world that this is absolutely a regional conflict, nothing to be worry about, nobody is going to globally deploy any force to handle anything, because you don't need to mobilize a dozen of armies resources for a fairly local conflict, even if the conflict involves a potencially hostile - to NATO - nuclear power.

Hence, MAD is not present in most of the scenarios probably evaluated in some tables around the globe. Even here, I think nobody is even mentioning great chances of a massive nuclear confrontation.

So, Russia has the upper hand in the game, and there's no MAD as a variable. So perspectives look awry from going towards a clean exit from the conflict. Nuclear options, are just of the several bad outcomes for EU.

I think by now NATO has lost the war and Ukraine is by itself, most probably any further military, intelligence assistant directly regarding about regaining control of the south of their country is being re-assesed right now.

They probably know they will have the lines of cooperation open just a couple more of hours till they fall to silence, and they will try to exact the most advances possible in this grim situation, for those lines would probably be stable for years, as it happened with Crimea.

Russia's Only “Winning Move”

Related Stories