During the cold war, the leadership of America made sure to try to deescalate, maintain multiple communications channels, and keep open favorable outlets to peaceful outcomes. It seems like a notable shift that none of these seem to be very prominent today.

The US also escalated at times, such as the reaction to missiles being placed in Cuba, which did almost provoke nuclear war.

And there was Nixon, who was busy trying to convince the world he was a madman willing to launch a nuclear strike to get what he wanted: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Madman_theory#Richard_Nixon

Right, there was strife between the nations but also tension relief with some back channels remaining open and it was happening all at the same time.

Perhaps is just isn’t as visible now - but it seems like back channels keep getting intentionally shut.

What kind of face-saving option should we offer Putin? Keeping in mind that we don't run Ukraine's diplomacy for them...

The Cold War featured American and Soviet pilots shooting at each other during the Korean War, supplying arms isn't nearly as big an escalation as supplying fighters.

It’s not so much about face saving as it is about maintaining some form a transition path to a more peaceful state. And to understand what path might be an option one has to have some forum of frank discussion - likely not with the leaders themselves but with high enough level people from both sides that they are at high enough level to see the lay of land.

The decision-making involved was quite rational if you assume Putin was operating with incomplete information. Had the war ended in two weeks, as it looked like it was going to right at the start, he would have met his domestic goals.

But then it turned out that Ukraine was more prepared than Russian intelligence thought, and Europe started flooding it with weapons. Given that Russia isn't taking the war half as seriously[1] as Ukraine is, none of what's happening is irrational or surprising.

[1] By design. Putin didn't want an existential conflict that required actual sacrifice on the part of his constituents, he just wanted an easy victory to cement his popularity. He's now stuck in a situation where he has few good options.

He also rotted Russia from the inside, putting only incompetent but loyal acolytes everywhere.

He was afraid of the Army, which is why it always treated it like shit, except for vanity projects.

Which is why they have hypersonic missiles and nuclear powered torpedoes, but no socks, uniforms and guns for recruits.

If The Tale of the Crosseyed Lefthander from Tula taught anything, it was not to polish rifles with sand. But the memo's still not getting through despite the upgraded steel fleas.

Book: The Steel Flea, Nikolai Leskov, 1881

>>"He also rotted Russia from the inside, putting only incompetent but loyal acolytes everywhere."

Not really. I recommend talking to Russians of certain age. What they say is something like "sure, Putin is far from perfect, but he saved us from the 90's"

I don't think most people understand how bad things were there after the wall fall. The usual human reaction is turn to a strong man that put some order in the chaos.

In other countries this sounds like the sort of thing that launches never ending coups.

Weakening the army and making sure everyone below you is incompetent is actually a great way of preventing coups. Convincing your international competition to be incompetent is much more difficult!

I agree with the general sentiment, but once you start calling in conscripts and mobilizing the population, it’s assumed you’re taking the war seriously.

> decision-making involved was quite rational if you assume Putin was operating with incomplete information

This is stupid strategy. Military men millennia ago were beyond it. The fog of war is real. One maintains exit ramps. Fully committing at the onset of a war you unilaterally start is blunder, full stop.

Part is the fundamental weakness of dictatorship, a weakness our ancestors addressed with monarchy. (Bush and Nixon could walk away from failed wars their successors wrapped up without fear for their lives. As could Roman consuls.) But a larger part is broad stupidity, concentrated at the Kremlin.

UA was incompetently underestimated, given every political decision involves incomplete information

They only survive because they're propped up by western powers. If someone had won their reelection that would have never happened. The tzar probably included that in his calculus but had his timetable delayed by the pandemic.

Of course, but UA had the balls and skills to use the tools effectively was what was very underestimated

Hopefully, one day the truth of delusional propaganda will be universally understood.

It is like a bio-weapon and will eventually take out your own troops.

UA was underestimated, RU was overestimated.

I think you should clarify that by a much smaller country you mean largest country in Europe.

You also seem to be purposefully misinterpreting the OP's point about what is being considered "casual". Whether you think Putin is irrational or not has no bearing on the fact that most of our leaders seem to be treating a potential nuclear war after decades of shuttle diplomacy indeed very casually.

On what basis are you saying that leaders are treating this issue casually?

Russia could have had peace any time by leaving Ukraine. Instead they've lost somewhere north of 50 thousand men in 6 months and equipment numbers that are more reminiscent of WWII then a regional battle. There is an amazing amount of copium in your post.

Ukraine is not even interested in negotiations in case you have not noticed.

If you break into my house and hurt my family, and then I start kicking your ass to the front door successfully, I'm not going to be interested in negotiations either.

If you've not noticed, Russia's negotiations are about as worthless as used toilet paper.

> f you've not noticed, Russia's negotiations are about as worthless as used toilet paper.

If you dont try you dont know, do you?

They aren't now. They were back in May when Boris Johnson flew out and pressured them to end peace talks back in May.

Irrational in what sense? Ukraine is a pro-American country that’s steadfastly moving towards NATO membership.

If the US attacked Canada because China overthrew the government, installed a pro-Chinese president, and started making stronger legal pacts, bonds, and certifications with China would that be irrational?

Being anti war is fine, and amicable. But don’t get it twisted. Putin is acting rationally

It may have been rational to start the war from Putin's perspective but in no world it is rational to continue to pile in resource when they are obviously losing both the war and any remaining political influence globally.

At this point the war is continuing purely to fuel the ego of a dying dictator.

Putin's irrationality is his insistence that Russia can take on the US as a major imperial player. Whatever you think of US imperialism (not a huge fan, personally) the reality is that the US is a hegemon which has the resources to run the largest military and intelligence operations on the planet.

Russia isn't, and doesn't. Russia isn't even close. So it uses political subversion instead of outright militarism. Which - it turns out - is possibly the one domain where it's competitive with the US. For not all that much money, some info war campaigns, and the help of internal allies, Russia almost got itself a two term president with eyes on a permanent dictatorship.

Nice plan. Didn't quite work.

But Putin decided to go ahead anyway. Which is insane. Every single goal - weakening NATO, weakening the EU, building closer relationships with China, India, and Turkey, strengthening Russia internally, cementing his own position in history as Tsar Vladimir I, saviour of the Empire - has failed, disastrously and counterproductively.

So now Putin has two choices. Admit defeat and have an unfortunate accident with a window, or burn everything to the ground out of spite and frustration.

He's not going for Option 1. So it's up to everyone else to make sure Option 2 doesn't happen.

> China overthrew the government, installed a pro-Chinese president

The first problem is that this "analogy" is not an accurate parallel to what happened in Ukraine. The US had no boots on the ground whatsoever.

There were mass protests, and then the elected parliament removed the president. Later, the people by a wide margin freely elected the current president, who is ardently against Russian interference.

There's not a democratic outcome here where "China" is illegitimately foisted upon the people of Canada.

> If the US attacked Canada ... would that be irrational?

No, because the US has the capability to invade Canada.

What's irrational about Putin is the self-defeating nature of his decision making. Both self-defeating for his country, as well as for the stability of his regime which translates into his personal safety.

He's embarrassed himself and his country, pushed Ukraine more towards the West, and achieved none of his strategic objectives.

I hope he is just behaving irrationally because of bad advice. The alternatives are more scary, because then the madman thing might not be an act.

you think the west was not slightly involved in making Ukraine an anti Putin regime? things did not happen naturally there.

I do think they were slightly involved. They invested a few billion dollars into pro-democracy organizations inside Ukraine, starting in the early 1990s, and held close diplomatic relations with Ukrainian politicians. None of this is abnormal, it's the standard practice of US soft influence.

But it's not even close to an exhaustive explanation. The Ukrainians have agency, they have their own media ecosystem, they are capable of forming their own opinions. They saw Putin as the dictatorial thug that he is. Putin achieved that by himself by invading Georgia, poisoning his opponents overseas, rigging elections and assassinating journalists.

Anyways, this isn't relevant to the question of Putin's rationality.

> Attacking a much smaller neighboring country and failing so miserably that they have to start making nuclear threats is hardly casual.

I assume he's talking about the US and the UK strong-arming Ukraine away from peace talks that had a chance at ending this conflict back in May. All the hawkish talk from Biden this whole time has been about dethroning Putin, leaving no face-saving diplomatic exit for him except escalation between nuclear powers, and that's exactly what's happening. The lessons of the past 70 years have gone out the window.