So does everyone here speak Swedish except me, or are we all chatting about an article we can't read? Here's an English article saying the same, just to maintain the illusion.
Occasionally there are HN articles with different articles. Court cases is a common one where often the HN article link to the primary sources and those that can't read dutch, German, Hindi or what have you will just have to auto translate or find a different source. Sometimes a friendly HN comment will post a good secondary source and hopefully it will rise to the top.
So let's recount what Putin has achieved in the last 3 months:
1. Failed to conquer all of Ukraine;
2. Failed to capture Kyiv;
3. Failed to make meaningful gains in the Donbass;
4. Failed to decapitate Ukraine's leadership;
5. Suffered huge casulaties;
6. Done massive damage to the perception of Russia's military (and thus the power it can project);
7. Done more for NATO solidarity than probably anything else in the last 20 years when previous to this, there wasn't a lot as much fervour for NATO;
8. Prompted Finland and Sweden to join NATO when previously they were happy being neutral;
9. Russia is now subject to broad sanctions where previously Europe was looking to increase gas dependence on Russia (eg Nord Stream 2).
So Putin has quite literally achieved nothing. A lot of this was foreseeable too, which is why many (including myself) thought Putin wouldn't invade.
The question now is what is Putin's state of mind? Is he aware of the true position (as in, is he getting accurate assessments and intelligence or just "yes men")? Does he still think he can "win"? What does "winning" even look like now? A rational person would be looking for a face-saving exit (think "mission accomplished"). I thought that might be occupying the Donbass and negotiating for some autonomy for the region but even that is starting to look out of reach.
My concern is that someone cornered like this after making such a huge gamble at terrible cost is capable of doing something even more awful.
You forgot couple important aspects: he also ruined the Russian economy (the conservative estimate is -12% GDP drop this year). Russian military industry also lost access to the Western high tech (unfortunately, a lot of it has been used in their modern equipment, such as missiles, aircraft, etc). It will take at least a decade for them rebuild the armed forces after the war with Ukraine.
There is indeed a risk of Kremlin using the tactical nuclear weapons. The United States needs to have a very robust strategy for such possibility. However, such use cannot be left without a response. Most likely it would be a military response. No response would set a catastrophic precedent, as it would invite the use of nuclear weapons in pretty much any conflict which involves a nuclear power. Just think about South China Sea, Kashmir conflict, etc. It would also lead to an era of nuclear proliferation, as weaker states would see no other option than to obtain nukes.
I think even the nutcases in Kremlin (or at least the Russian Armed Forces) understand that there would be an unprecedented response.
In my opinion it's destroying Ukraine as a country. Even if it takes years he's ready to keep this thing going until our economy collapses.
I mean, you're right, Russia hasn't succeeded in its goals. But if we take a look at Ukraine which will start to struggle economically in near future [1] you can change your opinion.
Putin has been writing and speaking about this for years. He really thinks Russia should control other Slavic people, and former territories of Russia and Soviet Union etc. And it's not only Putin. Most of the other high ranking officials must have been supporting the attack into Ukraine, otherwise it would not have happened. If it was him alone against everyone else, Putin would simply have been replaced. A large portion of the Russian population also supports the attack.
It is no fluke. You can't pin it on one "madman". It's as if the majority Russian people in Russia genuinely think they should control the land and people that is Ukraine. It's not all people. There are anti-war protests, millions of people have left Russia, and there are dissidents.
To somehow recover from this, it would require some deep reflection on what Russia really is, and what is its role in humanity. I'm afraid it will take some drastic events before people are able to question themselves to that level. It would begin with the philosophers and poets.
More people should be listening to Fiona Hill on this issue...she knows Putin better than any other outsider. And she has been saying the same thing for years: that if he doesn't get what he wants, he'll start using nukes. He wants to be seen as someone who restored the glory of the Russian empire, and he will use any tool at his disposal to get it. His lack of use of nukes up until this point doesn't really mean that he is bluffing, it is about timing and situational prudence; now is just not the right time. Also, she keeps saying that World War 3 has already started, we just haven't acknowledged it yet.
Those are positive, not normative analyses. The real question is what do we do about it. And I can't help but think that if it is more or less inevitable that he will use nukes before losing the war, and the only reason he hasn't used them yet is because of situational timing, then the approach that stands out to me is that we're in a better position to attack him now than we would be when he thinks the timing is right to blow up the world.
The worst part is that I can't see a valid "out" for Russia as a country from this.
Even if Russians, by some miracle, manage to pry Putin out of power, what then? Will anyone trust any of their leadership?
The level of sanctions on Russia is AFAIK unprecedented on a global scale, it's only been months and regular people are already feeling the effects. And if the sanctions go on for a few years, they'll be at Soviet Russia levels of living.
The Ruble is the world's top growing currency this year. The analysts seem to believe that it won't stay on top but that's certainly a positive note for Russia.
If he achieved "nothing" that would infact be preferable for Russia to the state they are in now. What he did is an equivalent of the manager of your team pulling a couple of all nighters over the weekend to do a "hero-refactor" on your codebase for "improvements" and then deploying it into production only for everyone to discover that the "improved" code has massive performance regressions, worse user experience and is harder to maintain... worse it can't be rolled back easily and the process of rolling it back will be slow and annoying, that is if the manager who made those changes even admits that it should be rolled back in the first place.
After all Putin's talk of the threats that other countries pose to Russia, the real threat to Russia is quite clearly Putin. He's a liability, and there's a very real possibility that he might make things even worse. Russia would be wise to remove him, but I have no idea how hard that would be.
> A lot of this was foreseeable too, which is why many (including myself) thought Putin wouldn't invade.
It was a gamble. Would Ukraine fold, or not? If they folded, Russia could have taken all of Ukraine, and the only price would be the sanctions. Putin could easily have thought that it would be worth the price.
The question was, what were the odds of Ukraine folding? Putin may have thought they were 90%, which would make it a worthwhile gamble. I'm not sure anyone in the West regarded the current situation as the most likely outcome, either.
So I'm not sure that it's fair to say that "a lot of this was forseeable". The sanctions were (though perhaps not to this level). NATO solidarity and Finland and Sweden joining were somewhat forseeable. I'm not sure that the rest were.
I agree. The Putin regime has paid such an enormous price over the last three months that I'm now concerned they might take egregious and insane steps at any time. These steps would be to save face, and I think they can in part be avoided if the regime could somehow package together something that they can sell as a victory to the Russian people and their sympathizers abroad.
I've been keeping an eye on non-MSM sources, and I've of two minds:
* Is there any evidence that what you say is true? I find it hard to believe most news sources these days, and most nation states often boost their own bravado through press conferences.
* If it is true, then I'm glad that US representatives haven't wasted taxpayer money by sending military aid when it's obviously not needed. I lean libertarian like many others on this forum, so I resonate a lot with similar commentary here.
This is great news. I don't think Turkey will be able to stop this considering how pissed off other members are at Russian genocide and belligerence. Seems Turkey doesn't mind that...
If you have a neighbour that invades sovereign countries, it makes sense to seek strong allies. This is a direct result of Russia invading Ukraine, it doesn't matter how much Russia complains now.
Sweden was an unofficial NATO member anyways. Everybody knew this. They just didn't officially join in order to pretend to be a 'neutral' actor on the world stage, but anyone with a brain should know whose side they are on.
In the modern world, there are only 4 independent states - US, china, russia and north korea. Everyone else is a vassal to some degree or another.
This seems clearly false for any useful concept of vassaldom. Which of those states dictates the foreign and domestic policies of India, or Pakistan, or Saudi Arabia, or Nigeria, or...
The way Sweden and Finland admission process unfolded makes a complete mockery of democracy
Rushed, decided behind closed doors, by a small clique of elites, without any semblance of democratic mandate, unconstitutional, no real public debate, no referendum, all in an atmosphere of McCarthy-like media frenzy. Any nuance is instantly brushed aside as Putin's propaganda
The polls put the support at ~52% in Sweden and ~61% in Finland. That means 48% and 39% of the people are neutral or against. This mass of people have no representation in mass media, and no major political party to back them. This void will be filled, probably by some outlier parties, possibly extremists. It's a recipe for a disaster
Only 21% and 12% are against in Sweden and Finland, respectively, vs 57% and 76% who want to join.
I understand your point about fracturing politics on issues like this (we're still paying for "Brexit"), and that 10-20% is a fair chunk of voters, but even then, you've got to be really against it to throw your lot in with an extreme single-policy party. A minority of the minority will be disillusioned or angry about it.
Given that the vast balance of opinion wants to join, joining takes months and can be reversed, and both countries have general elections within the next 12 months, I think democracy will be just fine.
Finland and Sweden are parliamentary democracies. Officials are elected to carry out governmental processes. These people are trusted to serve the interests of the country. Not everything needs to be put to a vote of the people.
And additional interesting bits, both the president have backed joining, and Sweden is joining NATO too:
"A possible Swedish application for Nato membership would raise backing in Finland to 83 percent.
A clear position by the Finnish president and the government backing membership raise support by around the same margin, to 82 percent."
Meaning the support to join is overwhelmingly in majority.
It's done within the constitutional system in Finland and Sweden. The timing and the speed of process is a rational choice while Russian military is choking in Ukraine and is unable pose a serious military threat elsewhere right now. It's a window of opportunity and the wise leadership used it.
It's disingenious to only state the support percentage for polls that also have a significant amount of "don't know / don't care / undecided" answers. And the polls I've seen all had a pretty large amount of responses that were not directly opposed to joining NATO.
The most recent poll I've seen for Finland also has an even higher percentage of support for joining NATO now than your poll.
Trying to remember the last time a military defense treaty went up for referendum, anywhere.
But, if we look at Brexit and how much Russia (apparently) corrupted that vote, I can’t say I’m shocked that either country would choose not to subject themselves to such a process.
There's a general election in Sweden in September. If you are correct then I suppose the outcome of the election will show massive losses for the parties that stand behind this decision and so democracy will win.
In a non-democracy, the dictator decides whatever they what.
These are democracies, and so people elected their representatives, and the representatives decided to join NATO. I lived in Sweden for many years, and it seems like the general population indeed supports it. No law says you have to go a referendum, and it's definitely not against the constitution. The fact it was a quick decision is a actually great IMHO - people often see democracies as slow to respond, and here you have two countries moving a democratic process relatively quickly.
[+] [-] dang|3 years ago|reply
https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&que...
[+] [-] aaomidi|3 years ago|reply
Something along the lines of please do English articles unless you absolutely can't?
[+] [-] TiredOfLife|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] karaterobot|3 years ago|reply
https://www.cnn.com/2022/05/14/europe/sweden-finland-nato-ne...
[+] [-] KptMarchewa|3 years ago|reply
https://www.deepl.com/translator works best for me.
[+] [-] belorn|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] robin_reala|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] jimbob45|3 years ago|reply
Another article on the matter. I was in the same boat as you, friend.
[+] [-] proxysna|3 years ago|reply
https://translate.google.com/?sl=sv&tl=en&text=https%3A%2F%2...
[+] [-] teddyh|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] jmyeet|3 years ago|reply
1. Failed to conquer all of Ukraine;
2. Failed to capture Kyiv;
3. Failed to make meaningful gains in the Donbass;
4. Failed to decapitate Ukraine's leadership;
5. Suffered huge casulaties;
6. Done massive damage to the perception of Russia's military (and thus the power it can project);
7. Done more for NATO solidarity than probably anything else in the last 20 years when previous to this, there wasn't a lot as much fervour for NATO;
8. Prompted Finland and Sweden to join NATO when previously they were happy being neutral;
9. Russia is now subject to broad sanctions where previously Europe was looking to increase gas dependence on Russia (eg Nord Stream 2).
So Putin has quite literally achieved nothing. A lot of this was foreseeable too, which is why many (including myself) thought Putin wouldn't invade.
The question now is what is Putin's state of mind? Is he aware of the true position (as in, is he getting accurate assessments and intelligence or just "yes men")? Does he still think he can "win"? What does "winning" even look like now? A rational person would be looking for a face-saving exit (think "mission accomplished"). I thought that might be occupying the Donbass and negotiating for some autonomy for the region but even that is starting to look out of reach.
My concern is that someone cornered like this after making such a huge gamble at terrible cost is capable of doing something even more awful.
[+] [-] rmind|3 years ago|reply
There is indeed a risk of Kremlin using the tactical nuclear weapons. The United States needs to have a very robust strategy for such possibility. However, such use cannot be left without a response. Most likely it would be a military response. No response would set a catastrophic precedent, as it would invite the use of nuclear weapons in pretty much any conflict which involves a nuclear power. Just think about South China Sea, Kashmir conflict, etc. It would also lead to an era of nuclear proliferation, as weaker states would see no other option than to obtain nukes.
I think even the nutcases in Kremlin (or at least the Russian Armed Forces) understand that there would be an unprecedented response.
[+] [-] osynavets|3 years ago|reply
[1] - https://www.economist.com/europe/it-will-be-hard-for-ukraine...
[+] [-] Gravityloss|3 years ago|reply
It is no fluke. You can't pin it on one "madman". It's as if the majority Russian people in Russia genuinely think they should control the land and people that is Ukraine. It's not all people. There are anti-war protests, millions of people have left Russia, and there are dissidents.
To somehow recover from this, it would require some deep reflection on what Russia really is, and what is its role in humanity. I'm afraid it will take some drastic events before people are able to question themselves to that level. It would begin with the philosophers and poets.
[+] [-] darksaints|3 years ago|reply
Those are positive, not normative analyses. The real question is what do we do about it. And I can't help but think that if it is more or less inevitable that he will use nukes before losing the war, and the only reason he hasn't used them yet is because of situational timing, then the approach that stands out to me is that we're in a better position to attack him now than we would be when he thinks the timing is right to blow up the world.
[+] [-] theshrike79|3 years ago|reply
Even if Russians, by some miracle, manage to pry Putin out of power, what then? Will anyone trust any of their leadership?
The level of sanctions on Russia is AFAIK unprecedented on a global scale, it's only been months and regular people are already feeling the effects. And if the sanctions go on for a few years, they'll be at Soviet Russia levels of living.
[+] [-] jimbob45|3 years ago|reply
The Ruble is the world's top growing currency this year. The analysts seem to believe that it won't stay on top but that's certainly a positive note for Russia.
[+] [-] avl999|3 years ago|reply
If he achieved "nothing" that would infact be preferable for Russia to the state they are in now. What he did is an equivalent of the manager of your team pulling a couple of all nighters over the weekend to do a "hero-refactor" on your codebase for "improvements" and then deploying it into production only for everyone to discover that the "improved" code has massive performance regressions, worse user experience and is harder to maintain... worse it can't be rolled back easily and the process of rolling it back will be slow and annoying, that is if the manager who made those changes even admits that it should be rolled back in the first place.
[+] [-] mcv|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] AnimalMuppet|3 years ago|reply
It was a gamble. Would Ukraine fold, or not? If they folded, Russia could have taken all of Ukraine, and the only price would be the sanctions. Putin could easily have thought that it would be worth the price.
The question was, what were the odds of Ukraine folding? Putin may have thought they were 90%, which would make it a worthwhile gamble. I'm not sure anyone in the West regarded the current situation as the most likely outcome, either.
So I'm not sure that it's fair to say that "a lot of this was forseeable". The sanctions were (though perhaps not to this level). NATO solidarity and Finland and Sweden joining were somewhat forseeable. I'm not sure that the rest were.
[+] [-] eschulz|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] spoils19|3 years ago|reply
* Is there any evidence that what you say is true? I find it hard to believe most news sources these days, and most nation states often boost their own bravado through press conferences.
* If it is true, then I'm glad that US representatives haven't wasted taxpayer money by sending military aid when it's obviously not needed. I lean libertarian like many others on this forum, so I resonate a lot with similar commentary here.
[+] [-] unknown|3 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] m00dy|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] stjohnswarts|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] seanw444|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] fabian2k|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] efleurine|3 years ago|reply
the best strategist of Russia ever.
[+] [-] qiskit|3 years ago|reply
In the modern world, there are only 4 independent states - US, china, russia and north korea. Everyone else is a vassal to some degree or another.
[+] [-] tablespoon|3 years ago|reply
Wut? North Korea is the vassalist vassal that ever vassaled. Russia might be getting there.
[+] [-] belltaco|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] SpicyLemonZest|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] m00dy|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] prepend|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] unknown|3 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] ddalex|3 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] notorandit|3 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] rainworld|3 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] ThinkBeat|3 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] retskrad|3 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] throw-nocoiner|3 years ago|reply
Rushed, decided behind closed doors, by a small clique of elites, without any semblance of democratic mandate, unconstitutional, no real public debate, no referendum, all in an atmosphere of McCarthy-like media frenzy. Any nuance is instantly brushed aside as Putin's propaganda
The polls put the support at ~52% in Sweden and ~61% in Finland. That means 48% and 39% of the people are neutral or against. This mass of people have no representation in mass media, and no major political party to back them. This void will be filled, probably by some outlier parties, possibly extremists. It's a recipe for a disaster
[+] [-] oliwarner|3 years ago|reply
I understand your point about fracturing politics on issues like this (we're still paying for "Brexit"), and that 10-20% is a fair chunk of voters, but even then, you've got to be really against it to throw your lot in with an extreme single-policy party. A minority of the minority will be disillusioned or angry about it.
Given that the vast balance of opinion wants to join, joining takes months and can be reversed, and both countries have general elections within the next 12 months, I think democracy will be just fine.
[+] [-] DANK_YACHT|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] toopok4k3|3 years ago|reply
Here's the latest poll news from 2022-05-09. "Yes" at 76%. https://yle.fi/news/3-12437506
And additional interesting bits, both the president have backed joining, and Sweden is joining NATO too: "A possible Swedish application for Nato membership would raise backing in Finland to 83 percent.
A clear position by the Finnish president and the government backing membership raise support by around the same margin, to 82 percent."
Meaning the support to join is overwhelmingly in majority.
[+] [-] rmind|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] fabian2k|3 years ago|reply
The most recent poll I've seen for Finland also has an even higher percentage of support for joining NATO now than your poll.
[+] [-] macintux|3 years ago|reply
But, if we look at Brexit and how much Russia (apparently) corrupted that vote, I can’t say I’m shocked that either country would choose not to subject themselves to such a process.
[+] [-] mingusrude|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] lobochrome|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] yoavm|3 years ago|reply
In a non-democracy, the dictator decides whatever they what.
These are democracies, and so people elected their representatives, and the representatives decided to join NATO. I lived in Sweden for many years, and it seems like the general population indeed supports it. No law says you have to go a referendum, and it's definitely not against the constitution. The fact it was a quick decision is a actually great IMHO - people often see democracies as slow to respond, and here you have two countries moving a democratic process relatively quickly.