Russia having so much influence is wild given how small their economy is
Ultimately I think that's why they probably won't invade, or if they did, they'd have a limited, short term achievable objective - wars are incredibly expensive with modern military equipment
Unless they literally just don't care about casualties and want to send in the endless waves of old soviet tanks and planes they have
Nukes permanently put you at the top of the list. Russia could be three cats and a sentient cactus and we'd still have to listen to the cactus as long as it had the launch codes.
Also operations on your border are so much cheaper. Everything is cheaper when your supply line is a few hundred km across well-developed land and not on the other side of the planet
In as much as i have a coherent theory as to what Purim’s original plan was for this situation, I think it was to snarfle up enough of the East to guarantee a stable land route to Crimea. None of this separatist controlled garbage, straight up Russian land grab. I’m not sure if the LSTs or forces in Belarus were originally part of it or if they were added once additional firepower started flooding in.
The problem, from an ‘everything going to hell’ standpoint is that all the weaponry that Ukraine has gotten not only makes the prospects for a Russian invasion of Ukraine more dicey, it also makes the separatist position less viable. So by making Ukraine less susceptible to Russian invasion, we’ve also increased the potential need for Russia to invade in order to secure their naval base.
Which frankly is on Putin, since his response to Euromaiden is what got us here. The dumb bastard could have responded in many different ways, but instead went with invasion and funding a rebellion. Forget the whole “If all you have is a hammer…” thing. This is what happens if you view every problem as a nail. That saying does work both ways.
There's already a bridge though, much cheaper to just build another one if they want more capacity
A single bridge that connects to Ukrainian territory (technically). If the separatists can’t hold the east then additional bridges ain’t gonna do shit. The tenuous nature of the connection, unless backed by fuck off levels of force, is obvious.
Shut up, Mr. Burton! You were not brought upon this world to get it!
The thing with Putin is that it’s more in his interest to bully Ukraine into whatever it is he wants then it is to actually invade, since Ukraine may not have the forces necessary to hold the east, but the invasion would drain there assets, likely face a significant partisan resistance, and see them eating a shitload of sanctions.
Furthermore, the longer he waits the worse it gets since Kiev is steadily accruing more and more hardware from their neighbours and the US, to say nothing of how the warmer it gets the ballsier the EU can get with economic sanctions.
Definitely... if Ukraine doesn't cut a deal, then Russia is left with nothing but shit options. Earlier someone was talking about the Catch-22 America faces of either an invasion of Ukraine or looking like they made a huge deal out of nothing. That's really not the way anyone was going to take it other than Russia's allies, even before those intelligence intercepts were published. Unless they can get something out of this diplomatically, Russia is either going to be seen having been forced to back down, or they have to invade, with all the fallout that comes with it. Even if it's worse for Russia, I think the invasion would be as costly on Putin's personal power, and that's going to be the deciding factor on this.
In as much as i have a coherent theory as to what Purim’s original plan was for this situation, I think it was to snarfle up enough of the East to guarantee a stable land route to Crimea. None of this separatist controlled garbage, straight up Russian land grab. I’m not sure if the LSTs or forces in Belarus were originally part of it or if they were added once additional firepower started flooding in.
The problem, from an ‘everything going to hell’ standpoint is that all the weaponry that Ukraine has gotten not only makes the prospects for a Russian invasion of Ukraine more dicey, it also makes the separatist position less viable. So by making Ukraine less susceptible to Russian invasion, we’ve also increased the potential need for Russia to invade in order to secure their naval base.
Which frankly is on Putin, since his response to Euromaiden is what got us here. The dumb bastard could have responded in many different ways, but instead went with invasion and funding a rebellion. Forget the whole “If all you have is a hammer…” thing. This is what happens if you view every problem as a nail. That saying does work both ways.
There's already a bridge though, much cheaper to just build another one if they want more capacity
A bridge is a much more vulnerable point of strategic failure, especially in a conflict against anyone other than Ukraine.
Let not any one pacify his conscience by the delusion that he can do no harm if he takes no part, and forms no opinion.
Russia having so much influence is wild given how small their economy is
Ultimately I think that's why they probably won't invade, or if they did, they'd have a limited, short term achievable objective - wars are incredibly expensive with modern military equipment
Unless they literally just don't care about casualties and want to send in the endless waves of old soviet tanks and planes they have
Nukes permanently put you at the top of the list. Russia could be three cats and a sentient cactus and we'd still have to listen to the cactus as long as it had the launch codes.
Yes, and what's been happening to Ukraine shows why no nation going forward will ever voluntarily disarm.
Russian economy is small but it also means the costs of paying Russian soldiers is lower, the cost of building Russian tanks is lower, the cost of designing new planes is lower.
Basically the idea of Cost of Living but on a national scale if I understand it right.
Plus Nukes. Without them, Russia would have no leverage against US Air Power and its armed forces would be target practice for Precision guided munitions. The tech level difference is so vast, its not even funny.
Shit, without Nukes, people would be discussing regime change if Putin decided to cross the border.
Without Nukes I imagine a menagerie of regional governors and generals would have caused Russia to go full Yugoslavia.
In as much as i have a coherent theory as to what Purim’s original plan was for this situation, I think it was to snarfle up enough of the East to guarantee a stable land route to Crimea. None of this separatist controlled garbage, straight up Russian land grab. I’m not sure if the LSTs or forces in Belarus were originally part of it or if they were added once additional firepower started flooding in.
The problem, from an ‘everything going to hell’ standpoint is that all the weaponry that Ukraine has gotten not only makes the prospects for a Russian invasion of Ukraine more dicey, it also makes the separatist position less viable. So by making Ukraine less susceptible to Russian invasion, we’ve also increased the potential need for Russia to invade in order to secure their naval base.
Which frankly is on Putin, since his response to Euromaiden is what got us here. The dumb bastard could have responded in many different ways, but instead went with invasion and funding a rebellion. Forget the whole “If all you have is a hammer…” thing. This is what happens if you view every problem as a nail. That saying does work both ways.
There's already a bridge though, much cheaper to just build another one if they want more capacity
A single bridge that connects to Ukrainian territory (technically). If the separatists can’t hold the east then additional bridges ain’t gonna do shit. The tenuous nature of the connection, unless backed by fuck off levels of force, is obvious.
I'm talking about the eastern bridge that connects crimea to russia proper. They only have to hold one town and even if the bridge was taken out there are two ports 5km from each other
It's not just nukes (although yes, primarily that). Its also being a permanent member of the UN Security Council which means a veto of any attempt at international intervention. That means a veto of any IMF action, joint resolutions, or basically anything but EU / NATO harshly worded letters.
It's not just nukes (although yes, primarily that). Its also being a permanent member of the UN Security Council which means a veto of any attempt at international intervention. That means a veto of any IMF action, joint resolutions, or basically anything but EU / NATO harshly worded letters.
All of those institutions are just shells for US/EU influences. Any action that the US wants will have an ex post facto approval of the UN, no matter what the other permanent members want. Even a united front opposing it, will have only temporary effect. see Invasion of Iraq. As for sanctions, the World Bank and the IMF, the US has such a dominant position in the global economy(being the worlds reserve currency will do that), that their decisions are the only decisions that matter on the subject.
The UN isn't how the World controls the US, The UN is how the US controls the World.
The sky was full of stars, every star an exploding ship. One of ours.
Russia, which seized Crimea from Ukraine in 2014 and backs separatists in the east of the country, wants security guarantees including a promise that NATO withdraws some soldiers from nearby countries and never admits Kyiv into the alliance.
Russia is stating in no uncertain terms that they want the Ukraine as part of their territory.
This is perfectly workable as an opening bid for negotiations.
We could almost certainly draw down some forces from countries like Poland without seriously compromising our interests and not admitting Ukraine, either forever, or for X years or whatever it might end up being, doesn't stop anyone from giving them all the guns they want.
Russia having so much influence is wild given how small their economy is
Ultimately I think that's why they probably won't invade, or if they did, they'd have a limited, short term achievable objective - wars are incredibly expensive with modern military equipment
Unless they literally just don't care about casualties and want to send in the endless waves of old soviet tanks and planes they have
Nukes permanently put you at the top of the list. Russia could be three cats and a sentient cactus and we'd still have to listen to the cactus as long as it had the launch codes.
Yes, and what's been happening to Ukraine shows why no nation going forward will ever voluntarily disarm.
I am extremely far from being an expert but I've repeatedly read people who are experts in the field say that Ukraine was not capable of using the nukes that it had when it had them, and disarmament was their only real option.
Russia having so much influence is wild given how small their economy is
Ultimately I think that's why they probably won't invade, or if they did, they'd have a limited, short term achievable objective - wars are incredibly expensive with modern military equipment
Unless they literally just don't care about casualties and want to send in the endless waves of old soviet tanks and planes they have
Nukes permanently put you at the top of the list. Russia could be three cats and a sentient cactus and we'd still have to listen to the cactus as long as it had the launch codes.
Yes, and what's been happening to Ukraine shows why no nation going forward will ever voluntarily disarm.
I am extremely far from being an expert but I've repeatedly read people who are experts in the field say that Ukraine was not capable of using the nukes that it had when it had them, and disarmament was their only real option.
Why Ukraine disarmed isn't really the thing anyone else is going to be taking into consideration though.
Russia having so much influence is wild given how small their economy is
Ultimately I think that's why they probably won't invade, or if they did, they'd have a limited, short term achievable objective - wars are incredibly expensive with modern military equipment
Unless they literally just don't care about casualties and want to send in the endless waves of old soviet tanks and planes they have
Nukes permanently put you at the top of the list. Russia could be three cats and a sentient cactus and we'd still have to listen to the cactus as long as it had the launch codes.
Yes, and what's been happening to Ukraine shows why no nation going forward will ever voluntarily disarm.
I am extremely far from being an expert but I've repeatedly read people who are experts in the field say that Ukraine was not capable of using the nukes that it had when it had them, and disarmament was their only real option.
They wouldn't have been able to use them as-is, Permissive Action Links would have prevented that.
But Ukraine had the scientists / engineers and would have been 90% or more of the way to working nukes with the material they could have scavenged even if they weren't able to bypass the PALs. At the time Russia was in no shape to come get them, but Ukraine was also a friendly nation with a basically puppet government that got lots of assurances Russia would respect their sovereignty in exchange for giving them up.
Edit - I would say if Ukraine is willing to negotiate they wont attempt to join NATO for X years in exchange for Russian assurances that would be up to Ukraine. But Russia should get told to go fuck themselves if they want those assurances from NATO. And if Ukraine gives them the finger and joins NATO once the invasion force stands down..well, shitting on treaties is kinda Russias thing and turnabout is fair play.
Russia having so much influence is wild given how small their economy is
Ultimately I think that's why they probably won't invade, or if they did, they'd have a limited, short term achievable objective - wars are incredibly expensive with modern military equipment
Unless they literally just don't care about casualties and want to send in the endless waves of old soviet tanks and planes they have
Nukes permanently put you at the top of the list. Russia could be three cats and a sentient cactus and we'd still have to listen to the cactus as long as it had the launch codes.
Yes, and what's been happening to Ukraine shows why no nation going forward will ever voluntarily disarm.
I am extremely far from being an expert but I've repeatedly read people who are experts in the field say that Ukraine was not capable of using the nukes that it had when it had them, and disarmament was their only real option.
Why Ukraine disarmed isn't really the thing anyone else is going to be taking into consideration though.
I don’t think Russia should be able to dictate which countries are allowed to join NATO. That should be off the table.
Why's that one exceptionally untenable?
I forget if marathon specifically expressed it but a few others have suggested that not allowing Ukraine to join NATO is tantamount to inviting them to invade at an undetermined but near term future date.
Russia having so much influence is wild given how small their economy is
Ultimately I think that's why they probably won't invade, or if they did, they'd have a limited, short term achievable objective - wars are incredibly expensive with modern military equipment
Unless they literally just don't care about casualties and want to send in the endless waves of old soviet tanks and planes they have
Nukes permanently put you at the top of the list. Russia could be three cats and a sentient cactus and we'd still have to listen to the cactus as long as it had the launch codes.
Yes, and what's been happening to Ukraine shows why no nation going forward will ever voluntarily disarm.
I am extremely far from being an expert but I've repeatedly read people who are experts in the field say that Ukraine was not capable of using the nukes that it had when it had them, and disarmament was their only real option.
Why Ukraine disarmed isn't really the thing anyone else is going to be taking into consideration though.
I don’t think Russia should be able to dictate which countries are allowed to join NATO. That should be off the table.
Why's that one exceptionally untenable?
I forget if marathon specifically expressed it but a few others have suggested that not allowing Ukraine to join NATO is tantamount to inviting them to invade at an undetermined but near term future date.
Its a meaningless condition that Russia is only asking for because they can play it up back home. Nothing about it stops NATO countries from building up Ukraine's military and then 10 years down the road or whatever if Russia is back at it then NATO is perfectly in its rights to say "well fuck you very much" and add them into the alliance anyway.
0
Options
MrMisterJesus dying on the cross in pain? Morally better than us. One has to go "all in".Registered Userregular
Russia having so much influence is wild given how small their economy is
Ultimately I think that's why they probably won't invade, or if they did, they'd have a limited, short term achievable objective - wars are incredibly expensive with modern military equipment
Unless they literally just don't care about casualties and want to send in the endless waves of old soviet tanks and planes they have
Nukes permanently put you at the top of the list. Russia could be three cats and a sentient cactus and we'd still have to listen to the cactus as long as it had the launch codes.
Yes, and what's been happening to Ukraine shows why no nation going forward will ever voluntarily disarm.
I am extremely far from being an expert but I've repeatedly read people who are experts in the field say that Ukraine was not capable of using the nukes that it had when it had them, and disarmament was their only real option.
Cheryl Rofer at Lawyers, Guns and Money had a recent post on this that was pretty helpful
Ukraine had nuclear missiles in its territory after the fall of the USSR, but never meaningfully controlled them. They didn't have the launch codes, which were always kept in Moscow. They also didn't have the schematics and/or engineering experts that understood their design. They couldn't use them and they couldn't maintain them (a nuclear missile requires ongoing maintenance, and the person maintaining it has to understand the design). What they could have maybe tried to do was dismantle and reengineer them into a form they could use, but doing so would be both expensive and dangerous, as trying to learn the design of a nuclear weapon by trial and error tinkering is a recipe for accidents. So not surprising that they traded them away, given that they only ever had them in the physical sense, and never in the operational sense.
Russia having so much influence is wild given how small their economy is
Ultimately I think that's why they probably won't invade, or if they did, they'd have a limited, short term achievable objective - wars are incredibly expensive with modern military equipment
Unless they literally just don't care about casualties and want to send in the endless waves of old soviet tanks and planes they have
Nukes permanently put you at the top of the list. Russia could be three cats and a sentient cactus and we'd still have to listen to the cactus as long as it had the launch codes.
Yes, and what's been happening to Ukraine shows why no nation going forward will ever voluntarily disarm.
I am extremely far from being an expert but I've repeatedly read people who are experts in the field say that Ukraine was not capable of using the nukes that it had when it had them, and disarmament was their only real option.
Cheryl Rofer at Lawyers, Guns and Money had a recent post on this that was pretty helpful
Ukraine had nuclear missiles in its territory after the fall of the USSR, but never meaningfully controlled them. They didn't have the launch codes, which were always kept in Moscow. They also didn't have the schematics and/or engineering experts that understood their design. They couldn't use them and they couldn't maintain them (a nuclear missile requires ongoing maintenance, and the person maintaining it has to understand the design). What they could have maybe tried to do was dismantle and reengineer them into a form they could use, but doing so would be both expensive and dangerous, as trying to learn the design of a nuclear weapon by trial and error tinkering is a recipe for accidents. So not surprising that they traded them away, given that they only ever had them in the physical sense, and never in the operational sense.
Plus in the early 90s the US was pretty keen on expanding its sphere in the region and offering the US government a big profile win in exchange for promises and closer ties seemed like an obvious move
Russia having so much influence is wild given how small their economy is
Ultimately I think that's why they probably won't invade, or if they did, they'd have a limited, short term achievable objective - wars are incredibly expensive with modern military equipment
Unless they literally just don't care about casualties and want to send in the endless waves of old soviet tanks and planes they have
Nukes permanently put you at the top of the list. Russia could be three cats and a sentient cactus and we'd still have to listen to the cactus as long as it had the launch codes.
Yes, and what's been happening to Ukraine shows why no nation going forward will ever voluntarily disarm.
I am extremely far from being an expert but I've repeatedly read people who are experts in the field say that Ukraine was not capable of using the nukes that it had when it had them, and disarmament was their only real option.
Why Ukraine disarmed isn't really the thing anyone else is going to be taking into consideration though.
I don’t think Russia should be able to dictate which countries are allowed to join NATO. That should be off the table.
Why's that one exceptionally untenable?
I forget if marathon specifically expressed it but a few others have suggested that not allowing Ukraine to join NATO is tantamount to inviting them to invade at an undetermined but near term future date.
I did not express that sentiment. I just feel that it’s unacceptable for Russia to ask for a condition where Ukraine can never join should they want to. They are an independent nation and their neighbor should not dictate how they choose to defend themselves.
I would be ok if they agreed to not join for say 5 years. But agreeing to never join should not be on the table as a condition.
Russia having so much influence is wild given how small their economy is
Ultimately I think that's why they probably won't invade, or if they did, they'd have a limited, short term achievable objective - wars are incredibly expensive with modern military equipment
Unless they literally just don't care about casualties and want to send in the endless waves of old soviet tanks and planes they have
Nukes permanently put you at the top of the list. Russia could be three cats and a sentient cactus and we'd still have to listen to the cactus as long as it had the launch codes.
Yes, and what's been happening to Ukraine shows why no nation going forward will ever voluntarily disarm.
I am extremely far from being an expert but I've repeatedly read people who are experts in the field say that Ukraine was not capable of using the nukes that it had when it had them, and disarmament was their only real option.
Why Ukraine disarmed isn't really the thing anyone else is going to be taking into consideration though.
I don’t think Russia should be able to dictate which countries are allowed to join NATO. That should be off the table.
Why's that one exceptionally untenable?
I forget if marathon specifically expressed it but a few others have suggested that not allowing Ukraine to join NATO is tantamount to inviting them to invade at an undetermined but near term future date.
I did not express that sentiment. I just feel that it’s unacceptable for Russia to ask for a condition where Ukraine can never join should they want to. They are an independent nation and their neighbor should not dictate how they choose to defend themselves.
I would be ok if they agreed to not join for say 5 years. But agreeing to never join should not be on the table as a condition.
Its not dictating if its a negotiation.
I don't think its something the other parties would agree to, at least in the indefinite, anyway though.
It’s a distinction without a difference. If they get to say “we won’t invade now, but in return you can never join NATO” they are dictating how Ukraine is allowed to govern themselves.
Also, what’s to stop them from making some other demand the next time? Now they know Ukraine will never have true NATO support.
It’s a distinction without a difference. If they get to say “we won’t invade now, but in return you can never join NATO” they are dictating how Ukraine is allowed to govern themselves.
Also, what’s to stop them from making some other demand the next time? Now they know Ukraine will never have true NATO support.
This objection doesn't make any sense to me. If we're going to negotiate our way back from this situation, as any sane person should hope we do, its going to involve Russia setting its terms. Kind of a given. If what other countries can get up to in the region is beyond the pale what is even on the table? By your own standards, Russia wanting a drawdown from NATO should be verboten as well.
It’s a distinction without a difference. If they get to say “we won’t invade now, but in return you can never join NATO” they are dictating how Ukraine is allowed to govern themselves.
Also, what’s to stop them from making some other demand the next time? Now they know Ukraine will never have true NATO support.
This objection doesn't make any sense to me. If we're going to negotiate our way back from this situation, as any sane person should hope we do, its going to involve Russia setting its terms. Kind of a given. If what other countries can get up to in the region is beyond the pale what is even on the table? By your own standards, Russia wanting a drawdown from NATO should be verboten as well.
When an antagonistic nation seeking to invade you demands you lower your defenses before they will begin to negotiate maybe not invading, it's very unlikely to be anything but a request to please make their conquest easier.
Well yeah, I don’t think Russia should get to tell NATO what to do. NATO is not going to invade, full stop. Anyone who either believes they might or who is putting that forward as a “legitimate” concern on Russia’s behalf is, quite frankly, a fool, in my opinion.
I don’t see what’s so hard to understand here. I said I would be ok if they agreed to not join for a number of years. They can negotiate the length of time. But Ukraine should reject without any further consideration the idea that they will never join. It’s an absurd request, one you yourself can see they would likely reject.
It’s a distinction without a difference. If they get to say “we won’t invade now, but in return you can never join NATO” they are dictating how Ukraine is allowed to govern themselves.
Also, what’s to stop them from making some other demand the next time? Now they know Ukraine will never have true NATO support.
This objection doesn't make any sense to me. If we're going to negotiate our way back from this situation, as any sane person should hope we do, its going to involve Russia setting its terms. Kind of a given. If what other countries can get up to in the region is beyond the pale what is even on the table? By your own standards, Russia wanting a drawdown from NATO should be verboten as well.
When an antagonistic nation seeking to invade you demands you lower your defenses before they will begin to negotiate maybe not invading, it's very unlikely to be anything but a request to please make their conquest easier.
"Ukraine can't join NATO" doesn't lower Ukraine's defense as they aren't part of NATO.
Russia having so much influence is wild given how small their economy is
Ultimately I think that's why they probably won't invade, or if they did, they'd have a limited, short term achievable objective - wars are incredibly expensive with modern military equipment
Unless they literally just don't care about casualties and want to send in the endless waves of old soviet tanks and planes they have
Nukes permanently put you at the top of the list. Russia could be three cats and a sentient cactus and we'd still have to listen to the cactus as long as it had the launch codes.
Yes, and what's been happening to Ukraine shows why no nation going forward will ever voluntarily disarm.
I'm honestly going to be surprised if we don't see Germany, Japan and Poland don't end up with warheads in the next 5 years, depending on how this plays out. The invasion, or not invasion is going to make the world a more dangerous place.
It’s a distinction without a difference. If they get to say “we won’t invade now, but in return you can never join NATO” they are dictating how Ukraine is allowed to govern themselves.
Also, what’s to stop them from making some other demand the next time? Now they know Ukraine will never have true NATO support.
This objection doesn't make any sense to me. If we're going to negotiate our way back from this situation, as any sane person should hope we do, its going to involve Russia setting its terms. Kind of a given. If what other countries can get up to in the region is beyond the pale what is even on the table? By your own standards, Russia wanting a drawdown from NATO should be verboten as well.
When an antagonistic nation seeking to invade you demands you lower your defenses before they will begin to negotiate maybe not invading, it's very unlikely to be anything but a request to please make their conquest easier.
"Ukraine can't join NATO" doesn't lower Ukraine's defense as they aren't part of NATO.
You are wrong. The ability to freely join defense pacts is itself a defense.
Oh hey sovereign nation we’re just gonna tell you what alliances your allowed to be a part of, and you never entering that alliance doesn’t actually get us to stop invading your country and remove the troops from it that we’ve already put there, in fact we’re just gonna talk about how we’re gonna “share” your country.
It’s a distinction without a difference. If they get to say “we won’t invade now, but in return you can never join NATO” they are dictating how Ukraine is allowed to govern themselves.
Also, what’s to stop them from making some other demand the next time? Now they know Ukraine will never have true NATO support.
This objection doesn't make any sense to me. If we're going to negotiate our way back from this situation, as any sane person should hope we do, its going to involve Russia setting its terms. Kind of a given. If what other countries can get up to in the region is beyond the pale what is even on the table? By your own standards, Russia wanting a drawdown from NATO should be verboten as well.
When an antagonistic nation seeking to invade you demands you lower your defenses before they will begin to negotiate maybe not invading, it's very unlikely to be anything but a request to please make their conquest easier.
"Ukraine can't join NATO" doesn't lower Ukraine's defense as they aren't part of NATO.
You are wrong. The ability to freely join defense pacts is itself a defense.
When it has no actual reduction is defensive capabilities you're stretching "lower Ukraine's defense" more than a bit but aaaaalright I guess.
The "can Ukraine join NATO" negotiation is not just between Russia and Ukraine, but also (more so) between Russia and the US.
The sovereignty thing is nonsensical because there is no inherent right of nations to join NATO and the alliance members are within their rights to restrict membership as they see fit.
But it is a sort of a reduction of their defensive capabilities. Joining NATO would unquestionably be an increase in their defensive capability or position on the global scale. Because as a member, the other nations are bound to retaliate if you are attacked. Not just agree to try and stop the attack from happening if they feel like it.
So, in its own way. Not joining NATO is an overall decrease in the defensive position.
Bullshit. It's never been acceptable for a strong nation to bully weaker nations by dictating what alliances they can or cannot form. We rightly castigate US foreign policy for garbage like this all the time.
The "can Ukraine join NATO" negotiation is not just between Russia and Ukraine, but also (more so) between Russia and the US.
The sovereignty thing is nonsensical because there is no inherent right of nations to join NATO and the alliance members are within their rights to restrict membership as they see fit.
"Inherent right of nations" is a nonsense phrase unless you're talking some sort of religious system. The members of NATO can choose to not allow a given nation to join based on their rules, but the issue is Russia trying to prevent that decision from being made by NATO if Ukraine requests it.
Bullshit. It's never been acceptable for a strong nation to bully weaker nations by dictating what alliances they can or cannot form. We rightly castigate US foreign policy for garbage like this all the time.
Yes, its wrong for Russia to do it. If its part of their conditions for leaving Ukraine alone its certainly worth negotiating over and wildly preferable to a shooting war.
Here's the thing with NATO (and why Russia doesn't want it around): It's sole reason to exist is to keep it's members safe from aggression by non-members. The most prominent Aggressor for most of NATO's members is Russia since it keeps trying to reassert it's sphere of influence whether it's neighbors want that or not.
It would stand to reason then, that if Russia doesn't want to worry about NATO it should stop threatening everyone and respect the independence of it's neighbors.
Posts
Nukes permanently put you at the top of the list. Russia could be three cats and a sentient cactus and we'd still have to listen to the cactus as long as it had the launch codes.
A single bridge that connects to Ukrainian territory (technically). If the separatists can’t hold the east then additional bridges ain’t gonna do shit. The tenuous nature of the connection, unless backed by fuck off levels of force, is obvious.
Definitely... if Ukraine doesn't cut a deal, then Russia is left with nothing but shit options. Earlier someone was talking about the Catch-22 America faces of either an invasion of Ukraine or looking like they made a huge deal out of nothing. That's really not the way anyone was going to take it other than Russia's allies, even before those intelligence intercepts were published. Unless they can get something out of this diplomatically, Russia is either going to be seen having been forced to back down, or they have to invade, with all the fallout that comes with it. Even if it's worse for Russia, I think the invasion would be as costly on Putin's personal power, and that's going to be the deciding factor on this.
A bridge is a much more vulnerable point of strategic failure, especially in a conflict against anyone other than Ukraine.
- John Stuart Mill
Yes, and what's been happening to Ukraine shows why no nation going forward will ever voluntarily disarm.
Without Nukes I imagine a menagerie of regional governors and generals would have caused Russia to go full Yugoslavia.
I'm talking about the eastern bridge that connects crimea to russia proper. They only have to hold one town and even if the bridge was taken out there are two ports 5km from each other
All of those institutions are just shells for US/EU influences. Any action that the US wants will have an ex post facto approval of the UN, no matter what the other permanent members want. Even a united front opposing it, will have only temporary effect. see Invasion of Iraq. As for sanctions, the World Bank and the IMF, the US has such a dominant position in the global economy(being the worlds reserve currency will do that), that their decisions are the only decisions that matter on the subject.
The UN isn't how the World controls the US, The UN is how the US controls the World.
This is perfectly workable as an opening bid for negotiations.
We could almost certainly draw down some forces from countries like Poland without seriously compromising our interests and not admitting Ukraine, either forever, or for X years or whatever it might end up being, doesn't stop anyone from giving them all the guns they want.
I am extremely far from being an expert but I've repeatedly read people who are experts in the field say that Ukraine was not capable of using the nukes that it had when it had them, and disarmament was their only real option.
Why Ukraine disarmed isn't really the thing anyone else is going to be taking into consideration though.
Why's that one exceptionally untenable?
They wouldn't have been able to use them as-is, Permissive Action Links would have prevented that.
But Ukraine had the scientists / engineers and would have been 90% or more of the way to working nukes with the material they could have scavenged even if they weren't able to bypass the PALs. At the time Russia was in no shape to come get them, but Ukraine was also a friendly nation with a basically puppet government that got lots of assurances Russia would respect their sovereignty in exchange for giving them up.
Edit - I would say if Ukraine is willing to negotiate they wont attempt to join NATO for X years in exchange for Russian assurances that would be up to Ukraine. But Russia should get told to go fuck themselves if they want those assurances from NATO. And if Ukraine gives them the finger and joins NATO once the invasion force stands down..well, shitting on treaties is kinda Russias thing and turnabout is fair play.
I forget if marathon specifically expressed it but a few others have suggested that not allowing Ukraine to join NATO is tantamount to inviting them to invade at an undetermined but near term future date.
Its a meaningless condition that Russia is only asking for because they can play it up back home. Nothing about it stops NATO countries from building up Ukraine's military and then 10 years down the road or whatever if Russia is back at it then NATO is perfectly in its rights to say "well fuck you very much" and add them into the alliance anyway.
Cheryl Rofer at Lawyers, Guns and Money had a recent post on this that was pretty helpful
Ukraine had nuclear missiles in its territory after the fall of the USSR, but never meaningfully controlled them. They didn't have the launch codes, which were always kept in Moscow. They also didn't have the schematics and/or engineering experts that understood their design. They couldn't use them and they couldn't maintain them (a nuclear missile requires ongoing maintenance, and the person maintaining it has to understand the design). What they could have maybe tried to do was dismantle and reengineer them into a form they could use, but doing so would be both expensive and dangerous, as trying to learn the design of a nuclear weapon by trial and error tinkering is a recipe for accidents. So not surprising that they traded them away, given that they only ever had them in the physical sense, and never in the operational sense.
Plus in the early 90s the US was pretty keen on expanding its sphere in the region and offering the US government a big profile win in exchange for promises and closer ties seemed like an obvious move
I did not express that sentiment. I just feel that it’s unacceptable for Russia to ask for a condition where Ukraine can never join should they want to. They are an independent nation and their neighbor should not dictate how they choose to defend themselves.
I would be ok if they agreed to not join for say 5 years. But agreeing to never join should not be on the table as a condition.
Its not dictating if its a negotiation.
I don't think its something the other parties would agree to, at least in the indefinite, anyway though.
Also, what’s to stop them from making some other demand the next time? Now they know Ukraine will never have true NATO support.
This objection doesn't make any sense to me. If we're going to negotiate our way back from this situation, as any sane person should hope we do, its going to involve Russia setting its terms. Kind of a given. If what other countries can get up to in the region is beyond the pale what is even on the table? By your own standards, Russia wanting a drawdown from NATO should be verboten as well.
When an antagonistic nation seeking to invade you demands you lower your defenses before they will begin to negotiate maybe not invading, it's very unlikely to be anything but a request to please make their conquest easier.
I don’t see what’s so hard to understand here. I said I would be ok if they agreed to not join for a number of years. They can negotiate the length of time. But Ukraine should reject without any further consideration the idea that they will never join. It’s an absurd request, one you yourself can see they would likely reject.
"Ukraine can't join NATO" doesn't lower Ukraine's defense as they aren't part of NATO.
You are wrong. The ability to freely join defense pacts is itself a defense.
Oh hey sovereign nation we’re just gonna tell you what alliances your allowed to be a part of, and you never entering that alliance doesn’t actually get us to stop invading your country and remove the troops from it that we’ve already put there, in fact we’re just gonna talk about how we’re gonna “share” your country.
Or is suddenly "national soverignity" not that valuable anyways?
Apparntly inddependant nations aren't allowed to make decisions for themselves if it it hurt's Putin's fee fees.
They might bitch yes, and maybe they'll start demanding it as part of negotiations.
When it has no actual reduction is defensive capabilities you're stretching "lower Ukraine's defense" more than a bit but aaaaalright I guess.
I'm not sure how a negotiation is supposed to work if wanting to set terms on how other countries behave is off the table.
Like if any terms constraining Ukraine are unacceptable what is it acceptable for Russia to get out of negotiations?
The sovereignty thing is nonsensical because there is no inherent right of nations to join NATO and the alliance members are within their rights to restrict membership as they see fit.
So, in its own way. Not joining NATO is an overall decrease in the defensive position.
"Inherent right of nations" is a nonsense phrase unless you're talking some sort of religious system. The members of NATO can choose to not allow a given nation to join based on their rules, but the issue is Russia trying to prevent that decision from being made by NATO if Ukraine requests it.
Yes, its wrong for Russia to do it. If its part of their conditions for leaving Ukraine alone its certainly worth negotiating over and wildly preferable to a shooting war.
It would stand to reason then, that if Russia doesn't want to worry about NATO it should stop threatening everyone and respect the independence of it's neighbors.