> Here I am, a Russian oligarch. I ordered the Ukrainian invasion because I bet that NATO wouldn't intervene because of my nukes

I think the mistake here is to assume that the invasion is dictated by economic interests (be they oligarch interests). I don't think what's happening is driven by oligarchs, but by other geopolitical ideas (insane as they are).

As far as I can see it there's no bet. Russia pretty much knows the US will not react, and the US has no interest to start WW3 over Ukraine.

I dont understand how someone in the western world could read history and still believe that doing exactly what they did at the start of WW2 will bring a different result.

Germany invaded Austria and Czechoslovakia just before WW2, and the allies didn't do much. Only when Germany invaded Poland did they declare war on Germany.

I just don't think that Putin in 2022 is Hitler in 1939. Russia is a waning power clinging to significance, not an ascending one.

Germany in 1939 was also a waning power, following the fall of the Weimar republic and subsequently World War I.

> Russia is a waning power clinging to significance, not an ascending one.

I don't believe this, unless you define "significance" as nothing more than having your name in the world newspapers, even if it's for the wrong reasons.

That might not necessarily be the case.

Look at where they sit strategically. The amount of resources they supply to an increasingly resource hungry world. The amount of math and science talent. The possession of advanced nuclear weaponry.

Look at what they are doing militarily right now and how effectively they are doing it.

They are an extremely significant country. This is true no matter how you feel about their government.

Italy's GDP is $1.87T. Russia's GDP is $1.48T, down from around $2.3T in 2013.

Russia's economy is dependent on fossil fuels. While the decrease in Europe's use of nuclear power has been a gift to Russia, the future for fossil fuels is not bright and Russia's kleptocratic government has starved the nation of economic innovation.

I don't know what "extremely significant country" means here, but Russia is objectively a country in decline both in terms of economic and cultural power.

In terms of real GDP (PPP), Russia is at $4.3T while Italy is at $2.6T. Russia has the 6th largest GDP by this metric. However, I'm not sure how to think about real GDP vs. nominal GDP when it comes to war.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_(PPP)

> amount of resources they supply to an increasingly resource hungry world

But that's the only thing they supply. At least in Europe (I hope) they'll start decoupling from Russian fossil resources asap.

> The amount of math and science talent

Pales in comparison to the US, China or the EU (taken as a block) and possibly even in comparison to the UK or Japan.

> The possession of advanced nuclear weaponry

This insures that MAD still works, but not much more I think.

>But that's the only thing they supply. At least in Europe (I hope) they'll start decoupling from Russian fossil resources asap.

Which is the last thing anyone should want because it will simply deepen ties between Russia and China.

The propaganda, both in the west and in the east have made this matter very hard to understand for the average citizen.

I don't know why they can't just be happy with all those blessings

Their economy is a little bit larger than the NY state economy.

Right. In terms of dollars. But what makes up the respective economies?

Overpriced healthcare, insurance and banking services might not be as valuable as oil, minerals and manufacturing going forward.

I just feel it's a huge conceptual mistake to underestimate the relative weights of forces.

Hitler in 1939 had economic/industrial parity with at least one, if not two of his primary combatants (France and UK). He then had good reason to believe that other countries either would not engage (USA) or were highly overrated (USSR). He also had allies of significant weight. (1)

Russia in 2022 has a GDP of $1.5T, and NATO has a combined GDP of $42T (2). Even if you make the case that Russia's current economic activity translates more effectively into wartime industry, I don't believe you can possibly make the case that it is 28x more effective.

Germany also had military technology and strategy advantages (see France in 1940) over its (early war) opponents. As good as Russia's "math and science talent" is, I would be shocked if it was even a quarter of the capability that the US alone has.

So no, Putin in 2022 is not comparable to Hitler in 1939.

(1) - http://www.zuljan.info/articles/0302wwiigdp.html. (2) - https://countryeconomy.com/countries/groups/nato

In 1939 there were no atomic weapons.

35% dependant on Europe for energy in GDP.

China is taking Russian engineers and cheap resources. In the meantime, Putin complained that they didn't invest enough back.

Total GDP ain't big either. Military is 6% of their gdp with a lot of older material too ( = maintenance cost)

Very low vaccination rates, means very low trust in the governement.

Russia is doing this because of a weak position. Not from a strong one.

China is giving something to give Russia confidence, but really not much.

The next question becomes, does US want to start a war over Estonia? Formally yes, of course, but I don't know.

I think yes. Estonia is part of NATO. Failing to defend them would lead to the collapse of NATO and the end of US hegemony.

The problem is that it won't likely be a direct invasion. Estonia has a significant Russian minority and we've seen this play book before:

Does NATO intervene when Russia starts (or really continues) courting pro-Russian politicians?

Does it intervene if that minority starts protesting?

Does it when that minority starts resisting?

Does it when Russia smuggles them arms?

Does it when little green men show up?

Does it when the rebels (now mostly little green men) advance West?

This go around the West tried sanctions and it obviously didn't work. Estonia is far more Western and fewer historic ties to Russia than Ukraine did. So it might not progress past step 1 in the playbook. Almost certain that Putin is going to try and likely will try for at least a couple decades to come.

> The problem is that it won't likely be a direct invasion. Estonia has a significant Russian minority and we've seen this play book before:

For instance, we've seen it dramatised in season 3 of Berlin Station: https://www.imdb.com/title/tt5191110/episodes?season=3

They absolutely will, I have zero doubt. Because otherwise NATO would be completely pointless and this would strengthen Putin even more, making him an even bigger treat for western countries.

I think it's in NATO's interest to believe in this steadfastly, but my imagination says that there are other scenarios. It's a gamble, but the best way to damage NATO is to make an ambiguous or small attack that makes it not invoke article 5 or to not respond properly.

My imagination says: as soon as new facts are established (let's say blitz invation of a city), you are tempted to not respond because you don't want to start a world war. Of course this fails the overarching theory (MAD, tit for tat etc), but I wouldn't think it's impossible. Maybe for example USA would say it wants to respond with sanctions to avoid a larger war.

This book pretty much lays out those other scenarios:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foundations_of_Geopolitics

* Use subversive tactics to destabilize countries

* Use natural resource control to pressure countries

* Use military as a last resort when influence fails

Basically, make energy deals with Germany, ignore the US and UK and install puppet governments in Eastern Europe through bribery and propaganda until they can be annexed or granted “special status”.

Ignore US? Well that didn't happen. Former president appears to have some connection and dependence on Russian interests.

* Ignore the threat of US / UK conventional military intervention through threats of mutual assured destruction

> My imagination says: as soon as new facts are established (let's say blitz invation of a city), you are tempted to not respond because you don't want to start a world war.

But how can you establish facts, when you have to kill hundreds or thousands of US soldiers in NATO country first? Do you think that the US will say "shit happens" lets do some financial sanctions? Biden already said that as soon as russians shoot US troops we have WW3. And I think no other conclusion could be drawn here.

The US has troops in the eastern NATO states (Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania ...), more than ever and likely more to come. Biden made it very clear, if russians open fire on US troops (NATO), we have WW3.

Does kind of depend on who is the president of the US.

If that Russian oligarch is deluded into believing MAD is now obsolete due to some top secret technology or military maneuver or whatever than all bets are off

That's what has been causing more tension than the actual nukes for a while now - effective countermeasures, or ICBM countermeasures. If one party has an effective countermeasure against ICBMs, it takes away MAD and the one holding the countermeasure gets to claim military superiority.

Of course, I don't believe there is such a system, or if there is it's very local; if it comes to nukes, they will come from anywhere (e.g. nuclear submarines) and can end up anywhere. If there was an effective anti-nuke system, we'd see launchers pop up everywhere, or if it's a space based one, see many launches of those to get enough coverage (like starlink).

I think fear of countermeasures unbalancing MAD is also what’s driving development of Russia’s non-ballistic missile based warhead delivery systems, like status-6 [1].

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Status-6_Oceanic_Multipurpos...

I doubt it. I really don't think he would choose a nuclear option, but rather an option in which his Russian troops fight NATO to the very end, something like Japan in the end of WWII. Except that this time, we can't use nukes.

> Here I am, a Russian oligarch. I ordered the Ukrainian invasion because I bet that NATO wouldn't intervene because of my nukes. But it turns out I was wrong and NATO is pushing back my invasion.

This is just a slightly different version of a Cuban Missile Crisis. It has nothing to do with economy.

> But it turns out I was wrong and NATO is pushing back my invasion.

I am a NATO Commander, I order the attack on Russian Troops in Ukraine. Russia retaliates with Nukes and I fire mine back and they fire theirs back on my Home Nation.

Did I profit?

Isn't it some kind of game theory problem? If you don't strike and they strike, you are guaranteed to lose. If you strike first, there is, however slim, chance of neutralizing enemy forces and surviving. Opposite side thinks the same.

There is no chance of survival. As soon as your missiles leave the earth or the sea, the enemy launches their entire salvo before your strike has time to hit its targets, and the world ends.

Yes, it's called MAD. I think it's been settled fact for decades that any country launching a nuclear strike against another nuclear armed country will be in turn annihilated. There is no survival.

War is complicated, confusing, and messy. An all out conflict greatly increases the odds of a situation where Putin thinks a nuclear attack is imminent and decides to strike first.

Or the war could turn into a route against Russia and defeat would mean the end of Putin's life. Why would he not draw a red line of threatening nukes, and mean it, in that situation?

If people were rational we wouldn't have had two world wars, Putin himself mentioned nuclear war a few times recently

> The risk of NATO intervention is high, right?

This is a classic game of "chicken", and NATO has basically told everyone they wouldn't get directly involved.

All your arguments happen to apply to NATO commanders too.

Here I am, head of a NATO member. I see Russia invade a country that we don't really care that much about. If we intervene there's a chance the world might end (and I will die). If we don't do anything except say some stern words online we'll lose some face but our money and lives are safe.

Do I intervene?

In a game of "chicken" the side with the most to lose and the side that believes they are most "rational" will lose. That losing side seems to be NATO now. Putin's image of being an irrational dictator willing to win at all costs is why he's winning this "chicken" game easily.