401–410 of 1001 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> The Russian forces seem to be trying to encircle or assault Kyiv. Yes, but although Putin is a bloody bastard, he's not stupid. His plan isn't to take entire control of Ukraine militarily but to swap the legit government with a puppet one he would control at will. Once he succeed, which is a matter of a few days, he'll gradually withdraw most of the forces, things will slowly return to normal and in a few years Ukr…
Gas is important, but what is more important is the nuclear arsenal. The US, China, Russia, Israel, India, Pakistan, and North Korea, are effectively untouchable by conventional military means, because they are able and willing to unleash nuclear holocaust in return - no matter what they do.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Ukraine signed a Budapest memorandum [1] where US, France, UK and Russia guaranteed its territory integrity in exhange for the 3rd in the world arsenal of nuclear weapons. 1. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Budapest_Memorandum_on_Secur...
US, France and UK have guaranteed that no country will ever dismantle their nukes for a piece of paper. This will make the world much more dangerous with Iran pursing nukes which will be shortly followed by Saudi Arabia. North Korea will never disarm. Proliferation will continue and technology advancements will make it easier for countries to acquire nukes.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Ukraine is not a member of NATO, so options are somewhat limited. Russia intends to use Chernobyl as a deterrent to NATO, according to the report (how, I do not know). It is also not straightforward to put a NATO ally right on Russia's vulnerable flank (it's endless plains and flat ground from Ukraine to Moscow, which has always been a source of strategic vulnerability for Moscow), so admitting Ukraine to NATO was ne…
> Russia were forced to shore up their vulnerable flank Russia wasn't forced to do anything. They could've merely quietly dropped two of their delusions: a) NATO was never going to attack them, unless it literally went crazy, or someone framed Russia so badly that a nuclear response was preferable to any other option. The West doesn't want to trigger a MAD scenario, and are keen to keep the post-WW2 peace and (in the…
That's not terribly different from what Russia is doing with Ukraine - they will overwhelm a weaker country for their own strategic reasons, enjoying the impunity granted by a nuclear arsenal (and not just your average one: the largest!).
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> The Russian forces seem to be trying to encircle or assault Kyiv. Yes, but although Putin is a bloody bastard, he's not stupid. His plan isn't to take entire control of Ukraine militarily but to swap the legit government with a puppet one he would control at will. Once he succeed, which is a matter of a few days, he'll gradually withdraw most of the forces, things will slowly return to normal and in a few years Ukr…
> His plan isn't to take entire control of Ukraine militarily but to swap the legit government with a puppet one he would control at will. Once he succeed, which is a matter of a few days,he'll gradually withdraw most of the forces, things will slowly return to normal and in a few years Ukraine will essentially (if not effectively) annex itself to Russia I wouldn't be so certain. I don't think Ukrainians would just c…
The Russian forces seem to be trying to encircle or assault Kyiv. I think they've taken the nuclear plant because it is a defensible point along their shortest line of advance. They wouldn't want to move past it without controlling the site.
> The Russian forces seem to be trying to encircle or assault Kyiv. Yes, but although Putin is a bloody bastard, he's not stupid. His plan isn't to take entire control of Ukraine militarily but to swap the legit government with a puppet one he would control at will. Once he succeed, which is a matter of a few days, he'll gradually withdraw most of the forces, things will slowly return to normal and in a few years Ukr…
We in the The West have some serious soul searching to do. A nuclear power has attacked a sovereign state and told us to stay away or something very bad will happen. They've been sabre rattling for weeks and weeks and we have frozen unable (or unwilling) to act. No good deed goes unpunished, every sanction has a cost etc etc but we're not ready to pay even a smallest price in order to save lives protect world peace.…
I believe your moral certainty is quite flawed:
1. It rests entirely on hindsight.
These events only started seeming inevitable about 24 hours ago.
Now we've found them to be true, we trust and are even impressed by the Americans' warnings. But these last weeks I little doubt the Bundestag's halls, and European couches everywhere, heard many recollections of Iraq's supposed WMD program.
2. You advocate a purely moral policy.
There's a quiet part in every happy Westerner's mind that believes, without examination, in the ultimate and inevitable triumph of good over evil. To be fair, the past few generations experienced reassuring evidence for this assumption - and Hollywood keeps the reassurance alive.
Unfortunately, the good guys do not always win; moral will cannot overcome geopolitical reality. Neither Realpolitik nor MAD were made defunct by 20 years of Pax Americana. History may have had a near-death experience, but she's apparently now quite recovered.
Ukraine is Russia's neighbor. Ukraine is very much Russia's family: brothers who long cohabited. Ukraine's attitude towards Russia is legitimately a vital interest of Russia. Russia has, by right of force (Realpolitik!), complete dominance to act in Ukraine. Deterrence was always the only realistic option.
500,000 Western soldiers 3. It is unrealistic about how democracies work. Only the aggression your proposed policy is meant to prevent would be sufficient to convince democracies to implement it: an unfortunate catch-22.
Democracies are extremely reluctant to go to war, which is good. The price paid is inevitably foolishness in global power politics. Roosevelt could not have started a pre-emptive war with Japan, though perhaps this would have been the optimal move.
Similarly, there is no chance that, in the context of 20 years of unbroken peace, any Nato member would be interested in such a massive deployment directly next to Moscow. No scenario would have allowed this risk.
If it did somehow happen, Russia's aggressive response could easily divide the alliance in recrimination for implementing such a reckless policy.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The EU and America have promised to help with economic sanctions on Russia and by providing military aid and lethal aid. The EU and America have explicitly not promised to help out with direct military action against Russia. The United States and Biden have said multiple times that the US will not have forces engage Russia directly in Ukraine. What specific promises are you referring to?
The US makes empty promises. Read the Budapest memorandum in which we made security guarantees so Ukraine would give up its nuclear arsenal[0]. Russian aggression would certainly be much more calculated if Ukraine still had that capability. [0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Budapest_Memorandum_on_Securit...
1. "[T]o respect the independence and sovereignty and the existing borders of Ukraine." Only Russia seems to have violated that one.
2. To "reaffirm their obligation to refrain from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of Ukraine, and that none of their weapons will ever be used against Ukraine except in self-defence or otherwise in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations." Same. The only one breaking this promise is Russia.
3. "[T]o refrain from economic coercion designed to subordinate to their own interest the exercise by Ukraine of the rights inherent in its sovereignty and thus to secure advantages of any kind." Haven't seen anyone claim that any party has violated this one.
4. "[T]o seek immediate United Nations Security Council action to provide assistance to Ukraine." Again, I think only Russia has broken this promise.
5. "[N]ot to use nuclear weapons against any non-nuclear weapon State party to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons." So far so good.
6. To "consult in the event a situation arises that raises a question concerning these commitments." OK.
Read the memorandum for yourself if you think I'm quoting selectively. It's short.: https://web.archive.org/web/20170312052208/http://www.cfr.or...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This isn't the US in Iraq, we're talking about Russia and Ukraine here
Russia still has social media. A catastrophic loss of Ukranian civilians in one event won't get buried easily.