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.