Ukraine

[Satinavian]

More than that, but in part. It's a consolation prize. Finding a neat rationale to exclude Russia from the European market for natural gas (and send your own natural gas by sea at higher prices) is another part

You are always writing as if NATO were the US. But that is not the case. The US might be the militarily most powerful member, but NATO consists mostly of the European nations. And most of them certainly never wanted to exclude Russia from the European market for natural gas and pay more for inferior US shale gas. Yes, there always also was bickering about transfer costs and which way the gas takes but avoiding Russian gas was never really seen favorably outside of the US.

NATO (correctly) isn't actually committing to defend anyone Russia might attack for associating with them. But they're still encouraging them to associate with NATO.

NATO is commited to defense its members only. That is why threatened countries want to join.

NATO has not actually made effort do get Ukraine to join and was always pretty lukewarm. Mostly because because so many NATO countries din't really want to potentially get dragged into wars if Ukraine was invaded. Having even more members does not really provide more security as NATO is more than powerful enough already. But it might get one involved in more conflicts and might even produce intra-NATO conflicts. So, NATO probably wouldn't even have agreed to take in Ukraine, if Ukraine wanted. Too many members were against it.

 

[Trunkage]

How has he still got a job?

Trump was telling Canada, Mexico, and Cuba not to be part of a hostile military alliance else he was going to invade? I honestly don't remember that. Are you sure?

Honestly, what happened to your reading comprehension

Trump was saying MS 13 was bad (amongst other things) so you must ban all Mexicans (even when he didnt actually mean Mexicans). He threaten Mexico to make them stop immigrants crossing their southern border.

He did the same for China thing to China and created a trade war. Over *check bnotes* the String of Pearls alliance that China was making.... That Trump saw as threatening. Just to be incredibly clear. He wanted them to stop making alliances

Similar for Iran and we had some boating incidents in the Persian Gulf. He made damn sure they couldn't ally themselves with anyone BECAUSE HE FELT THREATENED. He almost invaded them but was talked down by people in his staff

Where have you been living the last 6 years? Under a rock? The only reason why Trump didn't invade anywhere was because they were already stuck losing in 2 wars and the generals are smarter than that. The difference between Putin and Trump is that Trump had less crazy staff... and the army was already being used

EDIT: This is also pointless. It does matter if NATO existed or not. Putin wants Ukraine. He will use any excuse. If it wasn't NATO, it would have been the EU. Or the UK. That's how this works. If someone says Happy Holidays, you've just declared an automatic War on Christmas. Some idiot somewhere can turn everyone against you jsut because you said something they didn't like. Or at least pretend they didn't like

 

[Lykosia]

I actually thing that Ukraine maybe able to do it and stop Russia. Russia is only sending about 80 % of their active troops 150 000. Ukraine can easily mobilize three times more troops and they're fighting for their homes. Only advantage Russians had was their better technology, but if the west keeps giving better AT and AA weapons to Ukraine that advantage is soon lost. Russia would need to mobilize their reserves, but that could mean the end of Putin's regime. People in Russia are already protesting against this war and if Putin starts at gunpoint to force more people to fight, it may cause more protest and even lead to a revolution.

Just like Stalin did in 39, Putin clearly underestimated their enemy and it's will to fight. You can see Putin's displeasure and worry on his face in his latests appearances.

 

[Hawki]

I actually thing that Ukraine maybe able to do it and stop Russia. Russia is only sending about 80 % of their active troops 150 000. Ukraine can easily mobilize three times more troops and they're fighting for their homes. Only advantage Russians had was their better technology, but if the west keeps giving better AT and AA weapons to Ukraine that advantage is soon lost. Russia would need to mobilize their reserves, but that could mean the end of Putin's regime. People in Russia are already protesting against this war and if Putin starts at gunpoint to force more people to fight, it may cause more protest and even lead to a revolution.

Just like Stalin did in 39, Putin clearly underestimated their enemy and it's will to fight. You can see Putin's displeasure and worry on his face in his latests appearances.

I'm really not as sure.

Russia is already at the gates of Kiev. There's a strong chance they'll take the city. If they do, the war won't end automatically, but it would certainly be a disaster for Ukraine.

And bear in mind that Ukraine's very flat, so this isn't akin to Afghanistan, whose geography allows for long, drawn-out resistance.

 

[Thaluikhain]

I'm really not as sure.

Russia is already at the gates of Kiev. There's a strong chance they'll take the city. If they do, the war won't end automatically, but it would certainly be a disaster for Ukraine.

And bear in mind that Ukraine's very flat, so this isn't akin to Afghanistan, whose geography allows for long, drawn-out resistance.

Holding down hostile cities without massacring the population is no small task, though. Now, making a mess of Ukraine and then leaving most of it is quite achievable, and I've no idea what game Putin is playing, that might be a win for him.

 

[Agema]

Russia is already at the gates of Kiev.

This is not a surprise: wars are usually extremely mobile.

Ukraine has about 150,000 ground personnel, of which only a fraction will be actual frontline troops, which is tiny relative to the size of Ukraine. This means it must deploy to only a limited number of locations. Thus in practice it is not possible to stop the Russian army from reaching Kiev and other cities, because if Ukraine substantially deploys away from major strategic points, Russia just airdrops troops behind them or drives mechanised formations around them. This is doubly true because Russia will have air superiority, which will make it much harder for Ukraine to move troops around without being interdicted. Consequently, it was always likely that Ukraine planned to fight around Kiev and other major cities.

I'm inclined to think the invasion could have been blocked just with sufficient air power. When a side has air superiority or supremacy, it makes it very hard for their opponents to move vehicles around without getting bombed.

 

[Seanchaidh]

Another US official goes the other way with respect to the possibility of diplomacy. Encouraging/interesting if true and Kiev agrees. Also, kind of tragic in its timing. This was being trial ballooned by Kiev before all the killing, before the recognition of the Donbass republics, and so forth. I do hope that the people of Luhansk and Donetsk will have a say in their status under such a deal.

So, NATO probably wouldn't even have agreed to take in Ukraine, if Ukraine wanted. Too many members were against it.

Yeah, that's what makes it fairly galling. Why not make it official to take that rationale for war off the table? Strong leadership is often about being gracious to one's enemies or rivals (to a point), not stubbornly uncompromising. If you truly care about peace, entirely eliminate the most legitimate-sounding excuses for war in return for robust assurances of peace.

Also, you know what? You're right, I have been conflating the United States and NATO, and that can sometimes lead to confusion-- both for myself and people reading me. Continental Europe has been quite a bit more reserved. It would undoubtedly be more proper to say that the United States has been apparently using NATO to threaten Russia and build up its global hegemony, not that NATO as a whole has been aiming for outcomes like this or doing that much of the encouraging of Ukraine themselves. Nevertheless, I do maintain that encouraging Ukraine to be provocative is a theme of what the United States has been doing.

 

[Lykosia]

I'm really not as sure.

Russia is already at the gates of Kiev. There's a strong chance they'll take the city. If they do, the war won't end automatically, but it would certainly be a disaster for Ukraine.

And bear in mind that Ukraine's very flat, so this isn't akin to Afghanistan, whose geography allows for long, drawn-out resistance.

Russia doesn't have troops to occupy the city or the country. And in urban warfare Russia's advantages mean even less. If Ukrainians are willing, they could turn Kiev into another Stalingrad.

 

[Hades]

Another US official goes the other way with respect to the possibility of diplomacy. Encouraging/interesting if true and Kiev agrees. Also, kind of tragic in its timing. This was being trial ballooned by Kiev before all the killing, before the recognition of the Donbass republics, and so forth. I do hope that the people of Luhansk and Donetsk will have a say in their status under such a deal.

You mean that Russia has something to say about their status. That's kind of the worrisome part with them. Give them to much and you surrender part of Ukraine's policies directly to Moscow.

 

[Breakdown]

Russia doesn't have troops to occupy the city or the country. And in urban warfare Russia's advantages mean even less. If Ukrainians are willing, they could turn Kiev into another Stalingrad.

I don't think any modern army would be willing to fight in a battle like Stalingrad.

 

[bluegate]

The notion of Russia wanting to start negotiations at this point is ludicrous.

They invade a country and then they turn around and go; "We want a peaceful solution, why won't the country we violently invaded just come and talk to us!"

Any negotiations would be just me Russia stating their terms of surrender to Ukraine, Russia would be awarded for their aggression.
They'd be a fucking farce.

 

[Seanchaidh]

You mean that Russia has something to say about their status.

No, I mean the people there.

The notion of Russia wanting to start negotiations at this point is ludicrous.

They've been pretty explicit about what they want for quite awhile now, they just weren't ever offered it.

 

[Satinavian]

Yeah, that's what makes it fairly galling. Why not make it official to take that rationale for war off the table? Strong leadership is often about being gracious to one's enemies or rivals (to a point), not stubbornly uncompromising. If you truly care about peace, entirely eliminate the most legitimate-sounding excuses for war in return for robust assurances of peace.

Well, the biggest reason is probably that doing so would being to acklowledge the Ukraine as Russian sphere of interest/client state instead of its own souveraign nation and that they didn't believe at all that this would make Russia any less likely to invade. They would probably just make up some stories about Nazis or such. As they are doing anyway.
If people had believed that such a promise would actually guarantee lasting peace, they might have considered it, as outrageous as it might be.

A second reason is that while NATO currently would not have admitted Ukraine as member, it is not as if everyone agreed with this. There are NATO-nations with strong ties, good relations and a significant Ukrainian minority who view that idea far more favorably. Promising that they never can be part of the same military alliance as their closest neighbour just to appease a common threat is not something they would agree to.

A third reason is that several eastern NATO members fear that the west might abandon them if Russia really makes its move. That is mostly the baltics who have a horrible long history of this exact thing happening to them but the idea exists elsewhere as well. You might remember that the Ukraine was guaranteed by Russia, the UK and the US. And when Russia took the Crimea, the UK and US stood idle by. Would they stand idle by again if Russia invaded Lithuania ? Trump being loud about how he might only actually defend countries he personally likes didn't help either. Caving in to Russias unreasonable demands here would have stoked this fear further and destabilized NATO.

 

[Silvanus]

Are Mexico, Canada, Cuba, Guatemala, and others set to station Russian or Chinese nuclear missiles? Because whether I approve or not, the United States would absolutely remove any government from power that was that close and did so, no question. So I would tend to advise against actually threatening the security of the United States in such a way.

Ukraine wasn't "set to station nuclear missiles" either, unless we're in pre-crime territory.

So I'm not asking if you would advocate countries to give up threatening behaviours. Because Ukraine didn't make any. I'm asking if you would advise countries to capitulate if the US made other demands, that countries must change their own internal policy to suit American interests.

And if they didn't, whether you would blame those countries for threatening peace, and not the US.

In fact, let's do it with Ukraine: say Ukraine was applying to join CIS. And America said if you do, we'll be forced to invade to defend NATO. You would then say that Ukraine must capitulate, and proclaim that Ukraine was responsible for any breach of peace- and not the innocent US, which was only defending itself?

 

[bluegate]

They've been pretty explicit about what they want for quite awhile now, they just weren't ever offered it.

And why should Ukraine oblige Russia's wishes?

Russia is making unreasonable claims of a foreign nation and is now starting a war to have its claims answered.

And here you are carrying water for Russia.

And all I'm just left wondering; why?

 

[Seanchaidh]

Ukraine wasn't "set to station nuclear missiles" either, unless we're in pre-crime territory.

They wouldn't need to be-- yet-- for it to be the case that they very nearly may as well be, from the Russian perspective it only being a matter of time as subsequent developments would be out of Russian control. NATO membership implies mutual defense with America's gigantic nuclear arsenal, and unlike the Soviet Union, the United States has never pledged a no first use policy (not that I'd necessarily trust it if it did...) NATO has callously disregarded Russia's security concerns over Ukraine's aspiration to join NATO and there is no particular reason to think that NATO would suddenly develop an interest in the issue after guaranteeing Ukrainian mutual defense. Nuclear missiles stationed in Ukraine would be absolutely unacceptable in a situation in which the United States and Russia are the pillars of an international order based on the mutually assured destruction of both; it is simply too close for it to be reasonable for Russia to be able to figure out whether they're under attack in the case of any anomalous radar or other intelligence data, so you would virtually guarantee a Russian launch by accident. And the potential for nuclear missiles to be stationed in Ukraine while Ukraine is protected by mutual defense treaty with the United States nuclear arsenal means that Russia, by the time Ukraine was a part of NATO, would have no recourse other than an escalation to probable nuclear war or the United States and Ukraine unilaterally deciding never to put missiles in Ukraine (NATO membership would naturally obviate any compunction to abide by the Budapest Memorandum, because what would be the point? Some minor concessions on economic pressure that Russia was not apparently respecting anyway so far as I can tell; the Budapest memorandum would be superfluous for Ukraine given NATO membership). That is not an acceptable place to be in. It would be national security and the fate of humanity relegated to prayer.

Or to put it in a more visual manner:

Ukraine has neither nukes nor NATO membership -> Ukraine has NATO membership -> Ukraine has nukes

... is a chain that can only be stopped at the first of those three stages without an unacceptable risk of nuclear war. So if Russia is to stop the threat of Ukraine having both nukes and NATO membership, it has to do so before it has a NATO or any other NATO-like security guarantee. Granted, none of these steps necessitates the next step. But apart from the first, they completely nullify any Russian say in the matter of whether the next step is taken. Now, you can argue that Russia was early, perhaps, in abandoning hope of a diplomatic resolution without such a largescale invasion because much of NATO seemed not to want Ukraine to join anyway. On the other hand, it has been literal years of both NATO and Ukraine ignoring Russia's entreaties on this topic, and, while Ukraine didn't have NATO membership, it was receiving "lethal aid" from some very high profile NATO members in order ostensibly to fortify itself, another process that, allowed to go on long enough, could very well result in Russia having no leverage capable of stopping nuclear weapons from being placed in Ukraine. So there you go, that's the Russian rationale that actually makes good sense (not to be confused with the nationalist rhetoric which largely doesn't, or at least isn't at all persuasive to anyone but people like Navalny).

Can you blame Putin for not proposing a trade of Crimea for the desired guarantee of Ukrainian neutrality as was apparently an idea in Russia in 2014? In my opinion, yes. But that ship seems to have sailed.

 

[Seanchaidh]

And why should Ukraine oblige Russia's wishes?

Because a NATO security guarantee on Ukraine opens the door to nuclear missiles being placed in Ukraine, for reasons outlined above.

 

[Terminal Blue]

Because a NATO security guarantee on Ukraine opens the door to nuclear missiles being placed in Ukraine, for reasons outlined above.

Hey, remember when Ukraine received a security guarantee from the USA, Britain and Russia as a condition for disarming its massive nuclear stockpile..

Bet they feel kinda silly now, huh.

I also love how this entire argument is contingent on the idea that ICBMs don't exist.

 

[Lykosia]

The notion of Russia wanting to start negotiations at this point is ludicrous.

They invade a country and then they turn around and go; "We want a peaceful solution, why won't the country we violently invaded just come and talk to us!"

Any negotiations would be just me Russia stating their terms of surrender to Ukraine, Russia would be awarded for their aggression.
They'd be a fucking farce.

Putin has realised that he fucked up. Russia has already lost this war if things continue like this. You can't conquer and occupy a country of 40 million with 150 000 troops. Old wisdom is that you need at least three times more troops than the defenders have. Ukraine has three times more troops than Russia right now. Only options Putin has of military victory is that either Ukraine loses it's will to fight suddenly or Russia mobilizes more than 1 million reservists. Last option could cause civil unrest in Russia. Russia already has plenty of protests.

 

[Silvanus]

They wouldn't need to be-- yet-- for it to be the case that they very nearly may as well be, from the Russian perspective it only being a matter of time as subsequent developments would be out of Russian control.

OK. And you see this as grounds for a pre-emptive invasion and annexation of a country that didn't actually threaten them.

But as before, please apply the same logic to the US. Ukraine applies to join CIS. From the US perspective, its Ukraine without nukes or CIS membership -> Ukraine with CIS membership -> Ukraine with nukes!

...And so the US plans invasion. To "defend" itself. US warhawks blather that its the only way to prevent unacceptable risk of nuclear war.

Would you be here advocating that Ukraine should have capitulated to the US, changed their own policy to suit US paranoia, and that any break of the peace is the fault of Ukraine for failing to appease them, and not the US for actually invading?