Yes, Putin blinked. One thing he is if nothing else, is wanting to keep his job and getting a destroyed economy, more NATO troops at his doorstep and world condemnation for destroying tens of thousands of lives. It defies logic to invade and lose his stated goals. Since I am part Ukrainian, part Lithuanian, one grandparent from each country, I’m content with the arrangement. (My grandmother was reputed to be a witch — not a real witch, but a bi_ ch witch, which has always trifled me.) Crimea was part of Russia before one of those Soviet leaders gave it to Ukraine so let them have it back. The US took countless possessions from other nations. That is what dominant states do. Only a few years ago, we invaded Granada to overthrow a communist revolution during Reagan. Just another case of the goose and the gander. Let us never forget how we brutally crushed the Puerto Rican independence movement.
I hope that you are right that Putin is blinking. What's more I think you are right. Russian recognition of Ukraine's Luhansk and Dombetz provinces need not be a prelude to a Crimea type annexation. When Russia incorporated Crimea and Sevastopol into Russia in 2014, they were restoring a status that existed prior to 1954 when Khrushchev transferred them from Russia to Ukraine. The precedent for Ukraine could be Russian recognition of independent mini states like Georgia's Abkhazia, South Ossetia (two provinces which border Russia and are beyond Georgia's control) and, more puzzling to me, Adjara (which borders Turkey and is apparently also not controlled by Georgia). The Georgian precedent is accompanied by the Moldovan mini states of Transistrea and Tighina -- recognized and supported by Russia and beyond the control of Modova. Putin can note Russian Parliamentary action and walk away declaring victory without the need for an invasion. Biden could declare victory as well -- having demonstrated (along with Zelensky) the discipline to have avoided provoking Russia into an invasion. Is that enough of a victory to turn around Biden's loss of popularity? Probably not in and of itself. A foreign policy victory plus some legislative victories smaller than the full BBB might do it.
"An occupation of Ukraine would be easy for Russia to pull off, but hard to sustain. Stephen Budiansky estimated that a successful occupation requires one soldier for every 40 civilians. With over 40 million citizens, it would take more than a million occupying Russian soldiers. With only one million active forces, and with many of those performing other functions, Russia would have to dip into its reserve forces, which would be economically taxing and difficult to sustain. Another obstacle is that polling suggests millions of Ukrainians would offer armed resistance. An unwilling populace is very difficult to govern, and can become a sinkhole of time and resources. Thousands of Russians and Ukrainians may perish in the guerilla fighting that would continue after the defeat of the Ukrainian military. Such a state of affairs would only further threaten the popularity of Mr. Putin’s governance. Though they are far from an impartial observer, the Atlantic Council has for this reason predicted that a Ukrainian occupation could spell the end of Mr. Putin’s regime. At the very least, it is a very real possibility that a full-scale Ukrainian occupation would be like the failures of the US in Afghanistan and Vietnam. Tactically, the Russian forces would dominate, but the likelihood of peaceful incorporation of Ukrainian territories into the Russian state is very slim.
Wars are the most expensive things that countries do, and the financial strain of an occupation would be another threat to Mr. Putin’s popularity. Due to a combination of declining oil prices and foreign sanctions, after the 2014 annexation of Crimea, Russia faced a financial crisis which led to a 30% drop in the Russian stock market. It is possible that foreign sanctions would be more severe this time around, and it is almost certain that the bulk of Ukraine would be far harder to incorporate into Russia than Crimea. It is likely that many of the nations of the world would turn against Russia in the event of an occupation. The most likely outcome of this would be a strengthened Sino-Russian alliance. However, given the imbalance between the populations and economies of Russia and China this would mean that Russia would play second fiddle and subordinate partner to Chinese interests on the foreign stage.
With all these downside risks, it is surprising then that there is very little for Russia to gain in such an occupation. While Mr. Putin has his own reasons for preferring territorial unification, and those reasons cannot be discounted, the economic benefits of occupation are low. In the modern world, territorial expansion has very little upside. The exceptions to this are where rare or useful resources are available. However, Ukraine’s top exports are corn and seed oil, and Russia is already their top trading partner. Crimea is valuable because it gives Russia sea access, but that territory has already been annexed. The combined cost of occupation and sanctions would likely swamp any economic gain from Ukrainian occupation. The surest path forward for modern nations to become rich is through international trade, integration into global supply chains, and increasing innovation through population growth and efficiency gains. It is unlikely that a full-scale occupation would advance these goals."
Nicholas Sooy, Orthodox Christian Studies Center, Fordham University, 2/15/22
"As noted in the article linked above, West Virginia rescinded its ratification because abortion opponents feared that the Equal Rights Amendment would provide women with an argument that prohibiting them from making medical decisions about their bodies violates the Constitution. Which, of course, highlights one of the many reasons we need an Equal Rights Amendment . . . ." And why we need the Constitution and a credible Supreme Court to actually read it, much less interpret it.
The John Lewis quote is great. And I see I was with him until the “waiting in jail” part. Time for my own inner soul searching. How do I want to make a difference and what am I willing to endure or lose?
OK. The John Lewis quote is going on the frig. Sigh. I have it easy; most don't. So, I will calm myself, and find a new way to be of use without complaint.
Re: Yes, Virgina...R's...1950's. No small number of them would be satisfied with that, and would no doubt remain straining in the traces until we landed somewhere in the 19th century if allowed to do so. Also, Putin doesn't blink. He winks. Just like a lot of others we know.
If Putin has, indeed, blinked, it will be a result of all the pressure that President Biden and his allies have put on him. That will be a great feat, especially with the assistance that the Republicans have given Putin. It is amazing to me that sitting senators continue to support Russia. If Putin invades...it's Biden's fault. If he retreats...it's Biden's fault. Unbelievable. https://twitter.com/MarshaBlackburn/status/1492239606674243592
Your analysis of Putin's likely course seems spot on to me. Russia already controls the eastern provinces of Ukraine, but if it annexed them without the threat of war would probably face onerous sanctions. This way, he can get them formally into Russia, but by pulling back his threat of force, probably avoid any sanctions. (The US and its close allies--Britain and France, for instance--should still impose sanctions for this land grab.) As for occupying Belarus permanently, or even arranging a "friendly" re-integration of the former White Russian Soviet Republic, I could see that being a case of "be careful what you wish for." The Belarussian population is restive--remember the huge demonstrations against Lukashenko in 2020 (I think). Making Belarus formally a province of Russia could make it easier for future protests in that region to spread to the rest of the newly-enlarged country.
As for Facebook, why does anyone--anyone--spend more than a few minutes at a time on the site? The only time I go in is when I get an email that my cousin has posted something (depressingly often these days it's something about Wordle), or my retired partner. As soon as I glance at their posts, I log out. So I don't get any propaganda. But I still know that Facebook is evil.
I’m sorry—Putin blinking? I think not! He has and has had his eyes wide open this entire time! What we are seeing (of this annexation), is *exactly* what he planned…bait and switch with full-knowing he got exactly the outcome he wanted. No harm, no foul!
Trump shall be Al Caponed.
The John Lewis quote will go up on our refrigerator! Thank you! Linda Garson Smith
Yes, Putin blinked. One thing he is if nothing else, is wanting to keep his job and getting a destroyed economy, more NATO troops at his doorstep and world condemnation for destroying tens of thousands of lives. It defies logic to invade and lose his stated goals. Since I am part Ukrainian, part Lithuanian, one grandparent from each country, I’m content with the arrangement. (My grandmother was reputed to be a witch — not a real witch, but a bi_ ch witch, which has always trifled me.) Crimea was part of Russia before one of those Soviet leaders gave it to Ukraine so let them have it back. The US took countless possessions from other nations. That is what dominant states do. Only a few years ago, we invaded Granada to overthrow a communist revolution during Reagan. Just another case of the goose and the gander. Let us never forget how we brutally crushed the Puerto Rican independence movement.
I hope that you are right that Putin is blinking. What's more I think you are right. Russian recognition of Ukraine's Luhansk and Dombetz provinces need not be a prelude to a Crimea type annexation. When Russia incorporated Crimea and Sevastopol into Russia in 2014, they were restoring a status that existed prior to 1954 when Khrushchev transferred them from Russia to Ukraine. The precedent for Ukraine could be Russian recognition of independent mini states like Georgia's Abkhazia, South Ossetia (two provinces which border Russia and are beyond Georgia's control) and, more puzzling to me, Adjara (which borders Turkey and is apparently also not controlled by Georgia). The Georgian precedent is accompanied by the Moldovan mini states of Transistrea and Tighina -- recognized and supported by Russia and beyond the control of Modova. Putin can note Russian Parliamentary action and walk away declaring victory without the need for an invasion. Biden could declare victory as well -- having demonstrated (along with Zelensky) the discipline to have avoided provoking Russia into an invasion. Is that enough of a victory to turn around Biden's loss of popularity? Probably not in and of itself. A foreign policy victory plus some legislative victories smaller than the full BBB might do it.
"An occupation of Ukraine would be easy for Russia to pull off, but hard to sustain. Stephen Budiansky estimated that a successful occupation requires one soldier for every 40 civilians. With over 40 million citizens, it would take more than a million occupying Russian soldiers. With only one million active forces, and with many of those performing other functions, Russia would have to dip into its reserve forces, which would be economically taxing and difficult to sustain. Another obstacle is that polling suggests millions of Ukrainians would offer armed resistance. An unwilling populace is very difficult to govern, and can become a sinkhole of time and resources. Thousands of Russians and Ukrainians may perish in the guerilla fighting that would continue after the defeat of the Ukrainian military. Such a state of affairs would only further threaten the popularity of Mr. Putin’s governance. Though they are far from an impartial observer, the Atlantic Council has for this reason predicted that a Ukrainian occupation could spell the end of Mr. Putin’s regime. At the very least, it is a very real possibility that a full-scale Ukrainian occupation would be like the failures of the US in Afghanistan and Vietnam. Tactically, the Russian forces would dominate, but the likelihood of peaceful incorporation of Ukrainian territories into the Russian state is very slim.
Wars are the most expensive things that countries do, and the financial strain of an occupation would be another threat to Mr. Putin’s popularity. Due to a combination of declining oil prices and foreign sanctions, after the 2014 annexation of Crimea, Russia faced a financial crisis which led to a 30% drop in the Russian stock market. It is possible that foreign sanctions would be more severe this time around, and it is almost certain that the bulk of Ukraine would be far harder to incorporate into Russia than Crimea. It is likely that many of the nations of the world would turn against Russia in the event of an occupation. The most likely outcome of this would be a strengthened Sino-Russian alliance. However, given the imbalance between the populations and economies of Russia and China this would mean that Russia would play second fiddle and subordinate partner to Chinese interests on the foreign stage.
With all these downside risks, it is surprising then that there is very little for Russia to gain in such an occupation. While Mr. Putin has his own reasons for preferring territorial unification, and those reasons cannot be discounted, the economic benefits of occupation are low. In the modern world, territorial expansion has very little upside. The exceptions to this are where rare or useful resources are available. However, Ukraine’s top exports are corn and seed oil, and Russia is already their top trading partner. Crimea is valuable because it gives Russia sea access, but that territory has already been annexed. The combined cost of occupation and sanctions would likely swamp any economic gain from Ukrainian occupation. The surest path forward for modern nations to become rich is through international trade, integration into global supply chains, and increasing innovation through population growth and efficiency gains. It is unlikely that a full-scale occupation would advance these goals."
Nicholas Sooy, Orthodox Christian Studies Center, Fordham University, 2/15/22
"As noted in the article linked above, West Virginia rescinded its ratification because abortion opponents feared that the Equal Rights Amendment would provide women with an argument that prohibiting them from making medical decisions about their bodies violates the Constitution. Which, of course, highlights one of the many reasons we need an Equal Rights Amendment . . . ." And why we need the Constitution and a credible Supreme Court to actually read it, much less interpret it.
The John Lewis quote is great. And I see I was with him until the “waiting in jail” part. Time for my own inner soul searching. How do I want to make a difference and what am I willing to endure or lose?
OK. The John Lewis quote is going on the frig. Sigh. I have it easy; most don't. So, I will calm myself, and find a new way to be of use without complaint.
Re: Yes, Virgina...R's...1950's. No small number of them would be satisfied with that, and would no doubt remain straining in the traces until we landed somewhere in the 19th century if allowed to do so. Also, Putin doesn't blink. He winks. Just like a lot of others we know.
Facebook, Summoning the Satanic Hatrid & Cash-generating Powers of Algorithms Since 19??, that is, for way too long.
Remember that George the Bush, Jr. found it easier to look into Vlad's soul! Ooo. Is that the smell of eyes smoldering?
If Putin has, indeed, blinked, it will be a result of all the pressure that President Biden and his allies have put on him. That will be a great feat, especially with the assistance that the Republicans have given Putin. It is amazing to me that sitting senators continue to support Russia. If Putin invades...it's Biden's fault. If he retreats...it's Biden's fault. Unbelievable. https://twitter.com/MarshaBlackburn/status/1492239606674243592
Your analysis of Putin's likely course seems spot on to me. Russia already controls the eastern provinces of Ukraine, but if it annexed them without the threat of war would probably face onerous sanctions. This way, he can get them formally into Russia, but by pulling back his threat of force, probably avoid any sanctions. (The US and its close allies--Britain and France, for instance--should still impose sanctions for this land grab.) As for occupying Belarus permanently, or even arranging a "friendly" re-integration of the former White Russian Soviet Republic, I could see that being a case of "be careful what you wish for." The Belarussian population is restive--remember the huge demonstrations against Lukashenko in 2020 (I think). Making Belarus formally a province of Russia could make it easier for future protests in that region to spread to the rest of the newly-enlarged country.
As for Facebook, why does anyone--anyone--spend more than a few minutes at a time on the site? The only time I go in is when I get an email that my cousin has posted something (depressingly often these days it's something about Wordle), or my retired partner. As soon as I glance at their posts, I log out. So I don't get any propaganda. But I still know that Facebook is evil.
"Hatred." Maybe I've ingested more "Facebok spell" than I thought. 😬
I’m sorry—Putin blinking? I think not! He has and has had his eyes wide open this entire time! What we are seeing (of this annexation), is *exactly* what he planned…bait and switch with full-knowing he got exactly the outcome he wanted. No harm, no foul!