"We can’t simply wait and assume that a potential Russian attack won't come before 2029," German intelligence chief Martin Jaeger said. "We’re already under fire today."
Yeah we’re not actually that far apart, if at all :)
The only way they’re going to engage in violence anyone else is if they can be confident that it won’t incur a response on the order of a NATO counterattack (or even much less). In the mainstream media this is often where the discussion stops, but it’s worth considering how Russia and the West are already engaging in actions that could be seen as acts of war: cyber-attacks, airspace incursions from Russia; boarding ships (and presumably also cyber-attacks and airspace incursions our media just doesn’t talk about) from the West. There are levels of aggression that will not be met with such a full-throated response, and Russia uses those acts to attempt to punish the West for its support of Ukraine already.
The scope exists there for more escalation, and that is where vigilance must be directed.
No argument on any of those points, I think you nailed it. My concern however is that we’re seeing a lot of stuff in the media talking about Russia’s readiness for another conventional war, and while that assessment is accurate, it needs much better framing than it’s currently getting. When Zelensky is running around saying that Russia is gearing up for another invasion, that’s just blatant bullshit. I get it, he needs to fearmonger to keep the weapons to Ukraine flowing, and I respect the hustle, but I worry that people are being worked up into this fear of Russian “escalation” that’s going to actually lead to more people pushing for appeasement out of fear of what Russia can do.
Yes, they’re not a paper tiger, and if pushed into a conflict with NATO, they could certainly make that conflict a brutal and bloody one (especially if the US sat it out), but that’s not the same thing as “Putin will nuke the world if we so much as look at him funny”, which is the message that people are getting from the current discussions around Russia’s military capabilities. There needs to a better, more informed, more nuanced conversation about the realities of Russia’s ability to prosecute a wider scale war.
And I think it is important to discuss the fact that Russia is currently losing this war, despite what their gradual battlefield progress would suggest. That matters because we need the average member of the public to understand that an end is in sight. Our continued support can see Ukraine through this, and there is a version of events where Russia is forced to capitulate and agree to at least somewhat neutral terms for an armistice. No, Ukraine is never going to be rolling tanks into Moscow, but that’s not the only version of victory possible. We need people to understand that in order to justify the resources we’re supplying to Ukraine (resources that are, it must be emphasised, currently allowing us to tie up and potentially defeat a major threat at a fraction of the cost of a conventional war).
Yeah we’re not actually that far apart, if at all :)
The only way they’re going to engage in violence anyone else is if they can be confident that it won’t incur a response on the order of a NATO counterattack (or even much less). In the mainstream media this is often where the discussion stops, but it’s worth considering how Russia and the West are already engaging in actions that could be seen as acts of war: cyber-attacks, airspace incursions from Russia; boarding ships (and presumably also cyber-attacks and airspace incursions our media just doesn’t talk about) from the West. There are levels of aggression that will not be met with such a full-throated response, and Russia uses those acts to attempt to punish the West for its support of Ukraine already.
The scope exists there for more escalation, and that is where vigilance must be directed.
No argument on any of those points, I think you nailed it. My concern however is that we’re seeing a lot of stuff in the media talking about Russia’s readiness for another conventional war, and while that assessment is accurate, it needs much better framing than it’s currently getting. When Zelensky is running around saying that Russia is gearing up for another invasion, that’s just blatant bullshit. I get it, he needs to fearmonger to keep the weapons to Ukraine flowing, and I respect the hustle, but I worry that people are being worked up into this fear of Russian “escalation” that’s going to actually lead to more people pushing for appeasement out of fear of what Russia can do.
Yes, they’re not a paper tiger, and if pushed into a conflict with NATO, they could certainly make that conflict a brutal and bloody one (especially if the US sat it out), but that’s not the same thing as “Putin will nuke the world if we so much as look at him funny”, which is the message that people are getting from the current discussions around Russia’s military capabilities. There needs to a better, more informed, more nuanced conversation about the realities of Russia’s ability to prosecute a wider scale war.
And I think it is important to discuss the fact that Russia is currently losing this war, despite what their gradual battlefield progress would suggest. That matters because we need the average member of the public to understand that an end is in sight. Our continued support can see Ukraine through this, and there is a version of events where Russia is forced to capitulate and agree to at least somewhat neutral terms for an armistice. No, Ukraine is never going to be rolling tanks into Moscow, but that’s not the only version of victory possible. We need people to understand that in order to justify the resources we’re supplying to Ukraine (resources that are, it must be emphasised, currently allowing us to tie up and potentially defeat a major threat at a fraction of the cost of a conventional war).
Thanks for the conversation!