I do read most of the posts, though given the sheer volume and occasional incoherence it's always possible to miss something. I've seen little or nothing that indicates a specific suggestion. From JMA the closest I saw was a presumably facetious recommendation that the Ukraine be provided with nuclear weapons.
I've said from the start that the response should be multilateral, economic, and graduated, so we're not so far off being on the same page there. I try not to suggest specific economic sanctions, because I don't have the access to detailed data or the number crunching expertise to determine the cost/benefit relations of specific possibilities. If it were up to me I'd have had a team of experts on the Russian economy serving up lists of possibilities with projected impacts for each. I assume that this has been done.
Which specific red line do you mean?
I find it interesting that you say "Putin has totally established a dictatorship" and a few paragraphs later "Putin is struggling to get reelected". That seems to be a bit of a disconnect; can you explain?
I agree that Putin has backed himself into a corner: his proxies are failing despite very overt support, and now all his options are bad. This is a common problem in proxy war, as the US well knows: if your proxies can't do the job you're left without good options.
The question now is how to get him to take the bad option we prefer: not invading. Economic threats are part of that. So is undercutting the pretext: the last thing we need right now is a bunch of dead ethnic Russian civilians.
AP will have to respond to that; as I said before I don't see much point in negotiating without a solid supply of carrots and sticks at hand. The question is what the most effective carrots and sticks would be, and how and when they should be deployed.
Bookmarks