|
Majorian posted:If they get directly, boots-on-the-ground involved, that will be the end of NATO. They can invoke Article V all they like; Western Europe and the US will not have their backs. Poland’s government knows that, so they will not intervene, unless they leave NATO and start their own alliance. How many times has it been pointed out that NATO members are free to go to war all they like and article 5 doesn't apply to that? It has to have been at least a dozen and I know you've seen it so I don't know why you keep saying this when you know it's not true. But to add context, I will include this blurb from the NATO website: quote:The principle of providing assistance Nobody is dragged into anything. KillHour fucked around with this message at 08:06 on Mar 21, 2022 |
#
?
Mar 21, 2022 08:00
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 4, 2024 01:22 |
|
|
KillHour posted:How many times has it been pointed out that NATO members are free to go to war all they like and article 5 doesn't apply to that? It has to have been at least a dozen and I know you've seen it so I don't know why you keep saying this when you know it's not true. That is the same person who posted that "Putin is doing anything he can to deescalate the situation" in regards to Putin's speech recognizing the people's republics (or a related clearly escalatory event) right before the war Just the worst, wrongest takes (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2022 08:11
|
|
|
Sir John Falstaff posted:NATO states can take military action without NATO--the U.S. has done so a number of times, as have others. Never against a nuclear power that may, in fact, utilize nuclear weapons in the event of another foreign power intervening. KillHour posted:How many times has it been pointed out that NATO members are free to go to war all they like and article 5 doesn't apply to that? It has to have been at least a dozen and I know you've seen it so I don't know why you keep saying this when you know it's not true. I feel like you're not getting my point. Poland is free to go to war with Russia over Ukraine if it likes, but it will do so without the support of NATO, while putting itself at risk of a nuclear strike. So Poland's government will, in all likelihood, not choose to do so. They will hold the NATO line, because the potential costs to them in not doing so would be too great.
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2022 08:12
|
|
|
SourKraut posted:Yeah, this is my read on it also. Putin is allowed to get away with whatever he wants, because of Russia's nuclear arsenal, and everyone should just bend over backwards to accommodate him. Ok? What's your alternative? Nuclear exchange is a loving apocalypse.
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2022 08:12
|
|
|
Somaen posted:That is the same person who posted that "Putin is doing anything he can to deescalate the situation" in regards to Putin's speech recognizing the people's republics (or a related clearly escalatory event) right before the war I don't think I ever said that at all.  e: Grouchio posted:So why seek a 'peacekeeping' mission in Ukraine? Shore up domestic support back home to sweep all the shady poo poo they've been doing under the rug? This is Kazcynski and Duda we're talking here. I think there's plenty of domestic support for it in Poland, so the government has to make it look like they're trying. But the rest of NATO will say "no" to this. Majorian fucked around with this message at 08:17 on Mar 21, 2022 |
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2022 08:14
|
|
|
All you people desperate for doing some humane intervention. Jemen is being attacked by a non nuclear nation, and they are doing some hosed up war crimes. (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2022 08:14
|
|
|
Majorian posted:Never against a nuclear power that may, in fact, utilize nuclear weapons in the event of another foreign power intervening. They may not have gotten your point because you posted Majorian posted:If they get directly, boots-on-the-ground involved, that will be the end of NATO. [...] which we all know is not true, so maybe don't post like that if you want other people to get your point?
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2022 08:18
|
|
|
Majorian posted:I feel like you're not getting my point. Poland is free to go to war with Russia over Ukraine if it likes, but it will do so without the support of NATO, while putting itself at risk of a nuclear strike. So Poland's government will, in all likelihood, not choose to do so. They will hold the NATO line, because the potential costs to them in not doing so would be too great. You specifically said Poland would have to leave NATO and form their own defensive alliance. Presumably with blackjack.
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2022 08:18
|
|
|
Freudian slippers posted:They may not have gotten your point because you posted How is what I said there not true? If Poland gets directly involved, invokes Article V, and the rest of the alliance does not come to their aid in any meaningful way, that would probably be a pretty fatal blow to the cohesiveness of the alliance. KillHour posted:You specifically said Poland would have to leave NATO and form their own defensive alliance. Presumably with blackjack. I floated that as one of the only possible scenarios in which they get directly, militarily involved in Ukraine. I don't think that's a likely scenario. I think by far the most likely scenario is they stay in NATO and do not get militarily involved, because the potential costs to them would be too high to go in without NATO's support. Majorian fucked around with this message at 08:21 on Mar 21, 2022 |
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2022 08:19
|
|
|
Majorian posted:I don't think I ever said that at all. Oops correct, you just took credulously the words of a MFA that lied about every single thing they've said. Apparently everything coming out of US was escalatory lies by bloodthirsty neocons, but Russian ambassador is a messenger of peace, since he said so. Please keep making hundreds of posts with this good analysis, producing excellent predictions edit: Majorian posted:https://twitter.com/shaunwalker7/status/1495441342545149956
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2022 08:24
|
|
|
Somaen posted:Oops correct, you just took credulously the words of a MFA that lied about every single thing they've said. Apparently everything coming out of US was escalatory lies by bloodthirsty neocons, but Russian ambassador is a messenger of peace, since he said so. Please keep making hundreds of posts with this good analysis, producing excellent predictions By all accounts, Russia did expect things to go down as they did with Georgia in 2008. They were absolutely, incredibly wrong. As I've admitted more than once in this thread already, I was wrong in believing that they were smarter than this.
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2022 08:27
|
|
|
susan b buffering posted:Ok? What's your alternative? Nuclear exchange is a loving apocalypse. This strategy presents certain difficulties for values in human society other than 'obedience to Vladimir Putin.' I think this theory is distinct from 'is it worth it to risk nuclear war to defend Ukraine?' Thankfully it seems that this question may be somewhat moot as Russia seems to be thrashing around. But the argument of, 'if nuclear war is threatened, it's not worth it - no matter what "it" is - just give in, instead of having nuclear war' heavily benefits the party threatening nuclear war.
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2022 08:28
|
|
|
Sandweed posted:All you people desperate for doing some humane intervention. Jemen is being attacked by a non nuclear nation, and they are doing some hosed up war crimes. This is the Ukraine thread.
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2022 08:29
|
|
|
Sandweed posted:All you people desperate for doing some humane intervention. Jemen is being attacked by a non nuclear nation, and they are doing some hosed up war crimes. I think you open the wrong thread
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2022 08:31
|
|
|
susan b buffering posted:Ok? What's your alternative? Nuclear exchange is a loving apocalypse. Maybe stop apologizing for Putin and the overall Russian behavior, and tell them to stick those demands up their pipes? Russia does not own the only nukes on the planet and giving into their constantly larger demands just makes them demand bigger things. Appeasement does not work with an enemy whose entire thing is stealing everything they get away with. Exactly the same reason why Russians do war crimes everywhere they go, to make their enemies lose an appetite for continuing the conflict, so that they can press their claims and start planning the next war, while West goes "we caved in and stopped our support to preserve the humanity" or something equally stupid. For example in this conflict, being outraged over the things that Ukrainians do to defend their homes and starting with the concern trolling opinions "I do not think that they are that much better than the Russians" is a mental out for the west, and it is winning this war for the Russians. There is an undercurrent of that here already and it pops up every now and then.
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2022 08:31
|
|
|
Did the Russian stock exchange open?
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2022 08:32
|
|
|
Nessus posted:At a certain point, this argument - which I think is only one that exists in rhetoric, not even Putin has actually seriously advanced it - is that since the cost of nuclear war is so unthinkably high, Putin can have anything he wants if he only threatens to destroy the world if he does not get it. What can Putin take after this disaster of a war, though? He's not going to be able to annex Ukraine, he'd have probably even worse luck if he tried to take Moldova or Finland, and there's no real chance he'd try to invade a NATO state.
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2022 08:32
|
|
|
Majorian posted:By all accounts, Russia did expect things to go down as they did with Georgia in 2008. They were absolutely, incredibly wrong. As I've admitted more than once in this thread already, I was wrong in believing that they were smarter than this. Putin was signaling that he wants regime change, that Ukrainians do not exist and was preparing for an annexation as evidenced by the occupational forces that invaded together with the military, which is not similar at all to Georgia. Not only were you dismissing all that, you were actively dismissing all the other stuff coming out of the US intelligence as warmongering by the United States. All your takes are poo poo.
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2022 08:33
|
|
|
Nessus posted:At a certain point, this argument - which I think is only one that exists in rhetoric, not even Putin has actually seriously advanced it - is that since the cost of nuclear war is so unthinkably high, Putin can have anything he wants if he only threatens to destroy the world if he does not get it. We are speaking about Ukraine though.
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2022 08:34
|
|
|
Majorian posted:What can Putin take after this disaster of a war, though? He's not going to be able to annex Ukraine, the Russian army would absolutely up and desert if he went on to try to take Finland or Moldova, and there's no real chance he'd try to invade a NATO state. There is Belarus, and several *stans in the inner Asia where he can just tighten his grip and erase the international border that isn't fooling anyone. And depending how much Germany wants to think that this didn't happen and go back to buying Russian gas and oil, there is no saying if the EU or Nato would do anything meaningful if Russia were to attack Finland in, lets say, 2038 when this conflict is already the one before the other preceding the previous.
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2022 08:36
|
|
|
Der Kyhe posted:Maybe stop apologizing for Putin and the overall Russian behavior, and tell them to stick those demands up their pipes? Russia does not own the only nukes on the planet and giving into their constantly larger demands just makes them demand bigger things. Appeasement does not work with an enemy whose entire thing is stealing everything they get away with. Find any post in this thread where I have apologized for Putin or Russia. I am against the invasion, full stop, and I support the sanctions the west has placed on Russia. Sorry that I don't 100% agree with your position, but that doesn't make me a supporter of the invasion.
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2022 08:40
|
|
|
Somaen posted:Putin was signaling that he wants regime change, that Ukrainians do not exist and was preparing for an annexation as evidenced by the occupational forces that invaded together with the military, which is not similar at all to Georgia. Look, you're free to put me on ignore or report my posts or whatever. After the last twenty years of history, I won't apologize for doubting U.S. intelligence claims. If the CIA tells me the sky is blue, I'll have to look outside to check for myself. Der Kyhe posted:There is Belarus, and several *stans in the inner Asia where he can just tighten his grip and erase the international border that isn't fooling anyone. And depending how much Germany wants to think that this didn't happen and go back to buying Russian gas and oil, there is no saying if the EU or Nato would do anything meaningful if Russia were to attack Finland in, lets say, 2038 when this conflict is already the one before the other preceding the previous. I'm sorry, what does "erase the international border that isn't fooling anyone" mean?
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2022 08:40
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/KyivIndependent/status/1505790386534555648 Super cool that the Russians are operationalizing stealing food instead of leaving it to isolated bands of special forces that got dumped behind enemy lines.
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2022 08:42
|
|
|
Majorian posted:As I pointed out earlier, Russia's ability to wage war is going to be seriously blunted by this conflict and the resulting sanctions. It's not going to be able to invade anybody for quite a while - so "appeasement" really doesn't enter into the equation. Seems more that their prestige has been hurt than anything else. Majorian posted:You appease an empire that can conquer more of the world by offering it a smaller piece and hoping it will be satisfied. Russia isn't Germany in the 1930s, and Europe isn't the Europe of the 30s either. Concerned Citizen posted:We should keep to that line and strive to have a predictable foreign policy in regards to Russia, so they understand what will trigger a military response from us and what won't. What we don't want to do is create a Calvinball-like security environment, because that will backfire on us very quickly. But again, going back to my original question, if you are willing to allow Ukrainians to die out of fear of greater escalation, than I don't think you can use the morality principle of avoiding escalation between two nuclear-armed countries. You can make it a logical judgement, but I don't think allowing innocent people to die because of an extremely unlikely result, is a "moral" decision. Nuclear weapons have been treated as a defensive stratagem, so I'm not convinced that countering Russian aggression in a non-Russian country, would significantly escalate the chance of a nuclear exchange. Concerned Citizen posted:Like, I feel like I can turn the question back on those who want to intervene and ask if this is only about Russia or if we really think NATO should be engaged in endless wars against all the wrongdoers in the world. I view this from a perspective though that empathy for human life should transcend geopolitical boundaries and that we should have a moral obligation to help protect other humans. Concerned Citizen posted:I think it's working and we shouldn't upset the apple cart because we feel like we aren't doing enough. susan b buffering posted:Ok? What's your alternative? Nuclear exchange is a loving apocalypse. I personally think that if Poland sent in troops and tanks to help defend Ukrainian citizens, for example, that it would not cause a nuclear exchange or a "loving apocalypse".
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2022 08:49
|
|
|
Majorian posted:How is what I said there not true? If Poland gets directly involved, invokes Article V, and the rest of the alliance does not come to their aid in any meaningful way, that would probably be a pretty fatal blow to the cohesiveness of the alliance. NATO is a defensive alliance. You don't get to initate agression towards another state (no matter how justified) and then invoke article 5. But you know this.
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2022 08:51
|
|
|
Paladinus posted:Elizarov is a known satirist. He knows exactly what he's doing, and that orcs are actually evil, but want to see themselves as the good guys. I've been listening to his Soviet Song a lot lately. Assuming this is true, and I have no reason to doubt you,  at that academic.
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2022 08:56
|
|
|
SourKraut posted:Is it though? Even though their efforts so far seem to have been incompetent, they're still swimming in tanks, aircraft, etc., and it seems like India and China have stepped up to bankroll them economically. Granted being beholden to China is not a great long-term strategy for Russia, but still, I'm not actually convinced that their ability to wage war has been all that impacted by this. Their economy is going to be sent back to the 90s from the sanctions they're enduring right now. Maybe some of those will lighten up towards the end of the year, but even then, it's still going to do lasting economic damage. You need a strong economy to be able to fund a war machine that can occupy a country as big as Ukraine long-term, and Russia will need to occupy Ukraine if it wants any of its objectives beyond Donbas and Lukhansk to be fulfilled. quote:At the same time, if the UK, France, etc., had not been trying by any means possible to avoid war with Germany in the 1930s, and maybe had engaged in some proactive de-militarization activities earlier, then maybe things would have been different. Sounds a bit familiar in terms of trying to avoid conflict at all costs and ultimately seeing a greater conflict emerge? Germany had the largest economy in Europe in the 1930s, and an army that was in many ways state-of-the-art. Russia has neither of those things. What it has is a nuclear arsenal that can deter other countries from engaging with it militarily. But that only works one way. They can't say, "Hey, Kazakhstan - we're going to annex you, and if you complain, you'll get nuked," because then the jig is up. Nuclear deterrence is no longer a viable model if that happens. They risk other nuclear powers at the very least intervening conventionally. Freudian slippers posted:NATO is a defensive alliance. You don't get to initate agression towards another state (no matter how justified) and then invoke article 5. But you know this. You're making my point for me: Poland will not intervene militarily in Ukraine without NATO's backing. Since it will not have NATO's backing, it will not intervene in Ukraine. Majorian fucked around with this message at 08:59 on Mar 21, 2022 |
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2022 08:56
|
|
|
Majorian posted:
Lukashenka is already a Putin's hand puppet, and it is more than likely that if that guy falls, Russia does an intervention and Belarus is back being part of Russia. Kazakhstan would have also had a government change in this January if the Putin didn't intervene, so that place is also running only because Putin wanted it to keep going that way. Armenia and Azerbaijan are a conflict zone where Russia back the Armenia and Turkey the other; there is already Russian troops in the area as "peace keepers". So that is already 4 places which are within one small act of consolidating power move away from being back as parts of USSR. Going into Commonwealth of Independent States, we also have also Tajikistan, Uzbekistan, Kyrgyzstan and Turkemenistan, which all have minor to major economical dependencies on Russia, so they are also easy pray and all ex-Soviet states. And of course Moldova. So two countries that are run by despots backed up by Putin, two others which already have Russian troops in them unwillingly and rest being economically tied to Putin's regime. So should Putin need to find something else to do than move the borders in the European side of the country, there are plenty of international borders to formally erase in the inner Asia.
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2022 08:57
|
|
|
Kraftwerk posted:Why does Putin get to push the boundaries but the West can't. - statement from man nuked Majorian posted:Russia can barely invade and occupy part of Ukraine, and it's going to set their economy back to 90s levels of devastation; what makes you think they're going to invade anyone else anytime soon? It's a corrupt moron dictatorship that recently threw all the masks off and fully embraced mandatory revanchist hypernationalist bullshit as the national tone, so basically full blown fascism and also recently demonstrated that it has no necessary problem with invading despite a complete lack of capacity to do so we are too fresh off of constant assurance that "they would never invade Ukraine, it just doesn't make sense" to start prognostication about how they definitely wouldn't start more poo poo
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2022 08:58
|
|
|
Majorian posted:What can Putin take after this disaster of a war, though? He's not going to be able to annex Ukraine, he'd have probably even worse luck if he tried to take Moldova or Finland, and there's no real chance he'd try to invade a NATO state. In the theoretical argument, he could in principle skip the war and simply demand the territory and possibly pop off a tacnuke to show he means business. Then he would only need an occupation force, and I imagine the Russian military can, kind of, do that.
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2022 09:00
|
|
|
Staluigi posted:It's a corrupt moron dictatorship that recently threw all the masks off and fully embraced mandatory revanchist hypernationalist bullshit as the national tone, so basically full blown fascism Putin clearly expected Ukraine to fold a lot more quickly, didn't think the West would level sanctions as heavy as they have, and was catastrophically wrong on both counts. That doesn't mean he's an irrational actor in all of this; it means he made a massive blunder. What army is he going to use to invade another neighboring country - the one that's currently getting ground down in Ukraine, and that's going to need decades to rebuild?
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2022 09:02
|
|
|
Majorian posted:Their economy is going to be sent back to the 90s from the sanctions they're enduring right now. What makes you think Putin gives a poo poo about this?
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2022 09:03
|
|
|
with a rebel yell she QQd posted:The sink has been destroyed the washbasin is unharmed! Also... why is there a washbasin right next to the sink? My grandparents' house had that, separate washbasin in the kitchen. And a separate one in every bedroom. Cleanliness was next to godliness as far as they were concerned. (As far as the kitchen goes, I'm pretty sure the washbasin was installed long before they got a modern kitchen sink. Probably even before they got electricity in the house.)
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2022 09:04
|
|
|
Vincent Van Goatse posted:What makes you think Putin gives a poo poo about this? Again, you need a strong economy to fund a war machine big enough to invade, occupy, and/or annex fairly large countries like Ukraine. Russia did have a big economy going into this war; it's not going to have as big of one coming out of it. It won't be able to fund the scale of military operations that it has over the past couple decades. It's going to look a lot more like Russia in the 90s. "The sinews of war are infinite money."
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2022 09:07
|
|
|
Vincent Van Goatse posted:Assuming this is true, and I have no reason to doubt you, Elizarov is an extremely weird and talented dude and his fanbase is like 80% hipsters and 20% nazbol-leaning creeps with romantic view on Donbass separatists.
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2022 09:07
|
|
|
Majorian posted:Their economy is going to be sent back to the 90s from the sanctions they're enduring right now. I see this stated at times, but what's the basis for it? I don't think I've actually seen any literature indicating this level of impact. This is a genuine question, not trying to say it won't occur. quote:Germany had the largest economy in Europe in the 1930s, and an army that was in many ways state-of-the-art. Russia has neither of those things. What it has is a nuclear arsenal that can deter other countries from engaging with it militarily. But that only works one way. They can't say, "Hey, Kazakhstan - we're going to annex you, and if you complain, you'll get nuked," because then the jig is up. Nuclear deterrence is no longer a viable model if that happens. They risk other nuclear powers at the very least intervening conventionally. Germany suffered just as much, if not more, as any other country though during the Great Depression (https://eprints.lse.ac.uk/64491/1/WP218.pdf). Internally they fared better in many ways due to the re-armament of the military, but I don't think there was anything economically restricting the military development in other European countries besides a desire to avoid any major engagement like WWI. Regarding Russia, I guess I fully believe that its nuclear arsenal prevents other countries from engaging it in offensive military engagements against it, i.e. invasion, but I don't know that it should be treated as a casus beli if Russia is the aggressor and meets resistance. I am sure quite a few South Koreans wish China had taken that stance in October 1950 with regard to the United States.
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2022 09:09
|
|
|
Kraftwerk posted:Why does Putin get to push the boundaries but the West can't. it's not a credible threat coming from a western democracy, and bluffing is a terrible idea because it will get called and the call will weaken the credibility of american security guarantees for other countries--if we were willing to bluff about this, what else might be a bluff? is article 5 a bluff? you might consider it "unfair" that putin has maneuvers available to him that the west doesn't, but that cuts both ways. an erratic authoritarian kleptocracy can't, say, rally world opinion and suplex an aggressor's economy into a smoking crater within weeks. all states are constrained in the actions they can take by their own internal structure, but i know which hand i'm betting on in this conflict.
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2022 09:16
|
|
|
NomChompsky posted:https://twitter.com/KyivIndependent/status/1505790386534555648 look, if the ukrainians are stealing russian tanks, it's only fair for russians to steal some vehicles too tit for tat and a tooth for a tooth as they say
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2022 09:19
|
|
|
SourKraut posted:I see this stated at times, but what's the basis for it? I don't think I've actually seen any literature indicating this level of impact. This is a genuine question, not trying to say it won't occur. Nah, it's a fair question - to me, it seems to be the consensus among economists looking at the issue. Russia's going to end up hurting badly from these sanctions, in all likelihood: (bear in mind, this article is from a week ago) quote:Already, the snowballing economic crisis in Russia threatens to wipe out decades of economic gains made by ordinary citizens. quote:Germany suffered just as much, if not more, as any other country though during the Great Depression (https://eprints.lse.ac.uk/64491/1/WP218.pdf). Internally they fared better in many ways due to the re-armament of the military, but I don't think there was anything economically restricting the military development in other European countries besides a desire to avoid any major engagement like WWI. Yeah, but Germany had recovered dramatically by the time 1939 had rolled around. Russia was already having economic troubles for years before this war, thanks in part to COVID. And you can see with your own eyes, through this conflict in Ukraine, what kind of conventional army that tier of economy buys you. It's not going to get better for Russia anytime soon. They aren't going to get stronger because of this.
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2022 09:22
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 4, 2024 01:22 |
|
|
Majorian posted:They can't say, "Hey, Kazakhstan - we're going to annex you, and if you complain, you'll get nuked," because then the jig is up. Nuclear deterrence is no longer a viable model if that happens. They risk other nuclear powers at the very least intervening conventionally. this is correct, but also somewhat missing the point of nuclear deterrence. it's true that a nuclear arsenal can't help you prey on a non-nuclear neighbor directly, since kazakhstan has no reason to believe you'll actually go through with your insane threats. what a nuclear arsenal does do is improve the risk/reward assessment of a conventional invasion. having nukes means your military worst-case scenario (you lose and then they/their allies invade you) is no longer possible, because you can credibly threaten to use nuclear weapons in defense of your own sovereignty.
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2022 09:26
|
|