If Russian invaded Ukraine, would you favor or oppose war against Russia?

[Threviel]

There seems to be some kind of assumption that we could send help. I would imagine an invasion to be over in a matter of days with a demoralized under-equipped Ukrainian army folding almost immediately.

After that there might be some protests, but full blown rebellion Afghanistan style is highly unlikely in my mind. And with that the wests ability to send aid is borderline zero.

[Jacob]

There seems to be some kind of assumption that we could send help. I would imagine an invasion to be over in a matter of days with a demoralized under-equipped Ukrainian army folding almost immediately.

After that there might be some protests, but full blown rebellion Afghanistan style is highly unlikely in my mind. And with that the wests ability to send aid is borderline zero.

Do you have any insight into the capabilities of the Ukrainian armed forces as a foundation for what you imagine? I myself do not, but I'm definitely curious to learn more.

[Richard Hakluyt]

I have no detailed knowledge on the topic but have read articles that state that the Ukranian armed forces are much improved eg https://www.reuters.com/business/aerospace-defense/battle-hardened-better-funded-ukraines-army-knocks-natos-door-2021-04-14/

They are still out-classed by the Russian forces but, if the article is correct, things may not be easy for Putin.

I'm assuming that patriotism is a thing in Ukraine; without that defeat is certain as we saw in Afghanistan.

[Sheilbh]

There seems to be some kind of assumption that we could send help. I would imagine an invasion to be over in a matter of days with a demoralized under-equipped Ukrainian army folding almost immediately.

After that there might be some protests, but full blown rebellion Afghanistan style is highly unlikely in my mind. And with that the wests ability to send aid is borderline zero.

Maybe. From my understanding Russia's been surprised by the level of resistance they've had from Ukraine in the Donbass. Since the 2014-5 Ukraine's been fighting a low-level conflict against Russia, they have more tech and advanced weapopns (especially drones I believe) and believe they're better motivated. Plus it wouldn't be a surprise. You know the last war was and it happened in the context of a domestic revolution in Ukraine and the Sochi Winter Olympics which everyone would probably have thought was not a time for the host to attack a neighbour.

But you could be right - I thought the Luke Harding video for the Guardian was very good:
https://www.theguardian.com/world/video/2021/dec/16/on-the-ukraine-frontline-only-the-dead-arent-afraid-video

The Ukrainian Defence Minister has said that in an emergency they would open the armouries to the public and there's been polling that a pretty hefty majority of Ukrainian men are willing to resist an invasion with arms. Anecdotally I've heard from a Russia correspondent who's been to Ukraine in recent years that people seem pretty defiant to him and also that in the last 8 years you can hear a shift everywhere, even Kyiv or Odessa, in people speaking Ukrainian. I don't speak either but I've been to Ukraine - part holiday but also visiting a Ukrainian friend who lives there - and I am, as I mentioned, always really struck by the makeshift memorials to people who've died in the conflict. From speaking with him before this (and he's an English and German speaking expat Ukrainian who moved back after the war) it doesn't necessarily sound like a demoralised place.

I think there possibly was something to the accidental country line in the past - but if there's one thing that's capable of creating a nation, I think it's probably an invasion by your big next door neighbour.

[Josquius]

From what I've heard the big question is not whether Ukraine put up a fight but would it be smart for them to do so - Russias main aim in invading being to bring the Ukrainian army's main fighting force to battle and crush them.
Sounds sort of like the situation with the German navy in ww1 really. As long as they exist despite being out matched they are enough to be a concern. The primary aim is thus to bring them to a decisive battle.

[Threviel]

Do you have any insight into the capabilities of the Ukrainian armed forces as a foundation for what you imagine? I myself do not, but I'm definitely curious to learn more.

No, just a general feel and a comparison with how it went last time. The Russians are ruthless and competent, if they invade they will do so on good intel and I expect the Ukraine to fold quickly. If they don't invade it's probably that they feel that it won't be quick and easy.

[OttoVonBismarck]

See that's honestly where I disagree--I don't believe the Russians are that competent. Their actual military performance has been abysmal for decades, as has their officer corps, their military readiness etc. Part of Putin's mastery I think is creating that perception of competence, and that's even how he maintained a lot of his popularity--I knew Russians who defended Putin for years because they would contrast him with Yeltsin--a bumbling drunk who would literally stagger drunk off of the Presidential plane and things of that nature. But most of Russia's military commitments in Putin's tenure, in fact all of them, have been asymmetric conflicts where the sheer size of Russia versus its very small enemies was the most important factor.

Looking at what we know about Russian casualty numbers in several of their recent conflicts, I just don't see competence there, if anything I see very poor performance for an army that is purportedly supposed to be designed for direct conflict with the West.

[Josquius]

See that's honestly where I disagree--I don't believe the Russians are that competent. Their actual military performance has been abysmal for decades, as has their officer corps, their military readiness etc. Part of Putin's mastery I think is creating that perception of competence, and that's even how he maintained a lot of his popularity--I knew Russians who defended Putin for years because they would contrast him with Yeltsin--a bumbling drunk who would literally stagger drunk off of the Presidential plane and things of that nature. But most of Russia's military commitments in Putin's tenure, in fact all of them, have been asymmetric conflicts where the sheer size of Russia versus its very small enemies was the most important factor.

Looking at what we know about Russian casualty numbers in several of their recent conflicts, I just don't see competence there, if anything I see very poor performance for an army that is purportedly supposed to be designed for direct conflict with the West.

The historic case for sure. But since Georgia the word is they've improved a lot

[Threviel]

See that's honestly where I disagree--I don't believe the Russians are that competent. Their actual military performance has been abysmal for decades, as has their officer corps, their military readiness etc. Part of Putin's mastery I think is creating that perception of competence, and that's even how he maintained a lot of his popularity--I knew Russians who defended Putin for years because they would contrast him with Yeltsin--a bumbling drunk who would literally stagger drunk off of the Presidential plane and things of that nature. But most of Russia's military commitments in Putin's tenure, in fact all of them, have been asymmetric conflicts where the sheer size of Russia versus its very small enemies was the most important factor.

Looking at what we know about Russian casualty numbers in several of their recent conflicts, I just don't see competence there, if anything I see very poor performance for an army that is purportedly supposed to be designed for direct conflict with the West.

I was more thinking competent in the intelligence gathering part.

Their army is not up to western standards that's true, but they only have to be better than Ukraine's.

[chipwich]

I'd support aircraft support and maybe some heavy weapons gifts.

[Berkut]

See that's honestly where I disagree--I don't believe the Russians are that competent. Their actual military performance has been abysmal for decades, as has their officer corps, their military readiness etc. Part of Putin's mastery I think is creating that perception of competence, and that's even how he maintained a lot of his popularity--I knew Russians who defended Putin for years because they would contrast him with Yeltsin--a bumbling drunk who would literally stagger drunk off of the Presidential plane and things of that nature. But most of Russia's military commitments in Putin's tenure, in fact all of them, have been asymmetric conflicts where the sheer size of Russia versus its very small enemies was the most important factor.

Looking at what we know about Russian casualty numbers in several of their recent conflicts, I just don't see competence there, if anything I see very poor performance for an army that is purportedly supposed to be designed for direct conflict with the West.

Indeed. And this should not come as a surprise to us!

I've never really understood this about the liberal West.

We think the liberal, democratic order is a good thing not just because it's right, but because it actually works.

Autocratic mafia style, grifter buddy is no way to run a country. There is no fucking way that a few decades of Putin running Russia as a giant mafia scheme to funnel resources to himself and his buddies is going to result in anything but a disaster of a military, along with most of everything else not directly associated with extracting wealth to funnel to his friends and family.

You can have a large military under that system, but you sure as hell are not going to end up with a competent one, unless there is some other factor at play. And with Russia, there is not. It's not like there is some history there of an a-political, professional military that the best and brightest all want to be part of. Quite the opposite.

And every single example I've seen of the Russian military trying to do much of fucking anything looks like nearly a farce.

They have some so-so kit, and a bunch of poorly trained guys with a lot of guns. I think they are banking on everyone backing down.

Now, this should not make anyone feel all warm and fuzzy if it is true. Because a lot of times, douchbags like Putin either start to believe their own propaganda, or become so invested in it that they have to act *as if* they believe their own propaganda, which then gets them into serious trouble when they do something stupid like invade some other country because they've been bleating about it for so long they end up feeling like they don't have a choice.

And when shit goes sideways, they don't generally say "Ooops! So sorry about THAT miscalculation! I guess we better go home now....". No, they look for an out. They double down. They commit even more. And Russia has an "out". They have nukes. And Putin doesn't give a shit about his "legacy" or how he will be seen by history. That is an incredibly dangerous combination.

[mongers]

I'd support aircraft support and maybe some heavy weapons gifts.

So not Air Support?

[OttoVonBismarck]

See that's honestly where I disagree--I don't believe the Russians are that competent. Their actual military performance has been abysmal for decades, as has their officer corps, their military readiness etc. Part of Putin's mastery I think is creating that perception of competence, and that's even how he maintained a lot of his popularity--I knew Russians who defended Putin for years because they would contrast him with Yeltsin--a bumbling drunk who would literally stagger drunk off of the Presidential plane and things of that nature. But most of Russia's military commitments in Putin's tenure, in fact all of them, have been asymmetric conflicts where the sheer size of Russia versus its very small enemies was the most important factor.

Looking at what we know about Russian casualty numbers in several of their recent conflicts, I just don't see competence there, if anything I see very poor performance for an army that is purportedly supposed to be designed for direct conflict with the West.

Indeed. And this should not come as a surprise to us!

I've never really understood this about the liberal West.

We think the liberal, democratic order is a good thing not just because it's right, but because it actually works.

Autocratic mafia style, grifter buddy is no way to run a country. There is no fucking way that a few decades of Putin running Russia as a giant mafia scheme to funnel resources to himself and his buddies is going to result in anything but a disaster of a military, along with most of everything else not directly associated with extracting wealth to funnel to his friends and family.

You can have a large military under that system, but you sure as hell are not going to end up with a competent one, unless there is some other factor at play. And with Russia, there is not. It's not like there is some history there of an a-political, professional military that the best and brightest all want to be part of. Quite the opposite.

And every single example I've seen of the Russian military trying to do much of fucking anything looks like nearly a farce.

They have some so-so kit, and a bunch of poorly trained guys with a lot of guns. I think they are banking on everyone backing down.

Now, this should not make anyone feel all warm and fuzzy if it is true. Because a lot of times, douchbags like Putin either start to believe their own propaganda, or become so invested in it that they have to act *as if* they believe their own propaganda, which then gets them into serious trouble when they do something stupid like invade some other country because they've been bleating about it for so long they end up feeling like they don't have a choice.

And when shit goes sideways, they don't generally say "Ooops! So sorry about THAT miscalculation! I guess we better go home now....". No, they look for an out. They double down. They commit even more. And Russia has an "out". They have nukes. And Putin doesn't give a shit about his "legacy" or how he will be seen by history. That is an incredibly dangerous combination.

Good points here and one important one I think the West increasingly doesn't talk about enough--free societies are actually generally better governed than unfree ones. For the simple reason that extreme incompetence in managing a free society typically results in people losing power and their jobs. Unfree societies have always suffered from cronyism, nepotism, and other issues. Unfree societies benefit when the person in charge is highly competent, but since succession and inferior posts are usually given out on the basis of loyalty (either familial or otherwise), over time it becomes very difficult for unfree societies to maintain any kind of good governance.

I think a lot of times people confuse the growing spread of illiberalism with proof that such systems of government work better; they may work better at seizing power in troubled democracies, but they don't tend to produce better performing countries especially in the long term. Many of the problems Turkey for example is having right now can be directly tied to the simple fact that they have a President who is not accountable to anyone, who has put cronies in important positions (including important offices managing the economy), and things are being done very poorly. I don't think Russia has been managed that well at any point in Putin's tenure, but Putin has enjoyed a lot of petro dollars which have typically been able to mask the worst problems.

Several gulf states do the same, and they benefit from even more petro dollars per capita. As brutal and ruthless as he is, Saudi Arabia's MBS I think recognizes weaknesses in their system and is trying to find a way to modernize and professionalize the country without ceding power (that is not a thing we've seen many autocracies succeed at, but many have tried.)

The PRC is often pointed to as the big counterpoint, but I think there is a lot to consider there. For one, both the USSR and the PRC in theory were not designed as sole unitary dictatorships, while they were / are unfree societies, both had a model of Communist Party control where some organs and factions in the State could remove or sideline a leader who was doing a bad job. This is an important safeguard, and is probably one way an unfree society can try to reign in some of the worst consequences of unaccountable leadership. The problem is in an unfree society it is very difficult to sustainably maintain the organs of the state that can check a bad leader. You saw this in the USSR--Stalin pushed aside the men he shared power with an attained absolute rule, and also there was a negative cost to that; Khruschev ushered in an era of more organizational control over the leader, Breznev however worked to consolidate power and by the mid-1970s was back to a Stalinist level of control. There was more institutional / party control again after Breznev died.

The PRC kind of exemplifies this dynamic. Mao had no institutional limits to his power, and you had wild swings of good and bad from his reign. Deng had as much institutional power as Mao, but luckily for the PRC he was much more of an incrementalist and cared about good governance--his two immediate successors saw a 20 year spawn of time in which the paramount leader was responsible to other parts of the government and arguably was well managed. Xi is a return to more of a Maoist model, with no real limits to his power you're going to get the good / bad of Xi with little to stop either. That gets back to the core problem with such systems--an unaccountable leader who isn't a Frederick the Great style benign absolutist, can fuck the country up really bad and there's nothing that can be done to fix it.

[The Brain]

I'd support aircraft support and maybe some heavy weapons gifts.

So not Air Support?

Is that a cover band?

[Jacob]

Agreed, Otto. It is going to be very interesting to see what happens in Russia post-Putin, whenever that is. I don't get the impression that they have a particularly robust structure for power transition.

In China - from what I can see, Xi is more on the incompetent side than the competent one. The question is how competent his coterie of cronies and the elements of the party apparatus he chooses to empower are. But I've not been overly impressed with Xi's actions so far.