|
CommieGIR posted:Their demand is nobody east of Eastern Germany can participate in NATO. That's a no go. That's what they were saying. The US and a number of other NATO members would literally rather see Russia conquer Ukraine than accept those limits. I still don't believe Russia actually thinks that's a serious demand though, because there's no possible way members like Poland could accept it. If it's an attempt to create divisions within NATO by raising the prospect of second tier membership, it's the most clumsy and hamfisted way of attempting it possible, making it extremely easy for the core members to reassure the new neighbors, while less maximalist negotiations on strategic weapons and sizes of deployments and stuff might actually lead to disagreements within the alliance. Dr Kool-AIDS fucked around with this message at 02:37 on Jan 27, 2022 |
#
?
Jan 27, 2022 02:35
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 28, 2024 12:31 |
|
|
CommieGIR posted:Their demand is nobody east of Eastern Germany can participate in NATO. That's a no go. Are you sure it's not nobody east of Western Germany?
|
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2022 02:36
|
|
|
Sinteres posted:Looking back, it does seem pretty bizarre that they didn't even take Mariupol. I know they were going for a halfway plausible deniability thing, and maybe just hoped Ukraine would collapse or cave at some point after a demonstration of their helplessness, but boy did that not work if it was the goal. I guess it was all pretty haphazardly reactive to seeing an anti-Russian revolution succeed in Kiev though, so it wasn't the culmination of a master strategy or anything. Maybe at the time they thought trading the Donbas back to get some kind of recognition for Crimea would have been possible, idk. My guess is they didn't have enough manpower mobilized to make the full push. Even now the strategic assessment seems to be that they could only roll up to Dnieper, probably take Kiev, and then they'd need a lot more reserves if they wanted to take and hold the rest. Also, they must have guessed that massive economic sanctions would kick in for such an aggressive move, and needed to know how to deal with those first before committing to a larger invasion. Which adds up in hindsight, it took nearly a decade to get to this point and while they are poised to take a big chunk of Ukraine now, it's still a very messy affair ahead of them should they choose to do so.
|
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2022 02:38
|
|
|
Orthanc6 posted:My guess is they didn't have enough manpower mobilized to make the full push. Even now the strategic assessment seems to be that they could only roll up to Dnieper, probably take Kiev, and then they'd need a lot more reserves if they wanted to take and hold the rest. Also, they must have guessed that massive economic sanctions would kick in for such an aggressive move, and needed to know how to deal with those first before committing to a larger invasion. Which adds up in hindsight, it took nearly a decade to get to this point and while they are poised to take a big chunk of Ukraine now, it's still a very messy affair ahead of them should they choose to do so. Yeah, that makes sense, especially since it was a reactive move. I think they definitely tried to provoke an excuse to gobble up some more territory here and there since then, but yeah nothing approaching the build up we're seeing now. My personal guess is that if there is an invasion it stops short of Kiev, or at the very most takes eastern Kiev and leaves the city divided by the river. Taking the west really does seem like far more trouble than it's worth, though obviously not doing so leaves rump Ukraine that much more (justifiably) anti-Russian and determined to look west, assuming they don't just fall into crippling depression over the inability of the West to save them. Or that Nazis don't actually take over like some people pretend to believe has already happened. But I could see a far more limited incursion than gobbling up the entire east happening too, who knows. I guess knowing the severity of the sanctions to come might push them to grab the most they reasonably can if they bother doing anything at all though. Dr Kool-AIDS fucked around with this message at 02:47 on Jan 27, 2022 |
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2022 02:44
|
|
|
cinci zoo sniper posted:Nothing thread specific. I’ll obviously “moderate” to my own vision of a decent forums thread, in addition to D&D rules, but I’d prefer to interfere as little as possible into genuine discourse. Basically, don’t wish death upon people and don’t publish here your 37 post thesis about economic realities of Indonesia colonising Jupiter in 2074. *frowns, looks down at what's taken me all day to type. Deletes*  Giggle Goose posted:The maximalist nature of Russia's initial demands and the fact that they haven't seemed to have softened on them are two factors that suggest to me that this entire thing was decided a long time ago. I am wrong all of the time though and I certainly hope that I am wrong about this. Yeah, this is how I feel about it, unfortunately.
|
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2022 02:44
|
|
|
OddObserver posted:Are you sure it's not nobody east of Western Germany? Why are you all calling it western Germany and eastern Germany. There's only one Germany: The New German Democratic Republic.
|
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2022 02:49
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:Their demand is nobody east of Eastern Germany can participate in NATO. That's a no go. I believe the Russians could live with NATO not withdrawing to the pre-97 line if they could somehow receive a guarantee of Ukraine categorically never joining NATO, but such a guarantee is likewise impossible in the first place due to a number of reasons. This is why I view the negotiations as entirely performative rather than the force concentration being some kind of PUPPET MASTER Putin bluff. Speaking of, someone asked upthread when all the forces would be in place, and the answer appears to be "really soon"; there haven't been fresh units sighted on rails for a couple days now. Maybe when the rail elements are back from Belarus there'll be another round of reinforcements, like the rest of the 1GTA or more VDV, or they just use them to start railing up personnel. The amphibious warships crossed Gibraltar a couple days ago and are maybe 4-7 days away from the Black Sea.
|
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2022 02:52
|
|
|
Conspiratiorist posted:if they could somehow receive a guarantee of Ukraine categorically never joining NATO, but such a guarantee is likewise impossible in the first place due to a number of reasons. We all agree that Ukraine isn't joining any time soon, so it still seems like a very easy guarantee to make, and very much a won't rather than can't situation. NATO already draws very clear lines between members and non-members, so stating the reality that not every non-member has access to being a member doesn't have to undermine the security of members.
|
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2022 02:56
|
|
|
WAR CRIME GIGOLO posted:Why are you all calling it western Germany and eastern Germany. There's only one Germany: The New German Democratic Republic. It's a tongue in cheek reference to the Soviet union exerting puppet state influence over East Germany and tying it to a suggestion that putin, since he already demands a nato rollback of the former soviet republics east of Germany, that he will attempt to recreate that kind of Soviet influence (for anyone who doesn't get this, I mean. Bc it did fly over my head as someone with English parsing issues)
|
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2022 02:57
|
|
|
Commiegr, what I'm trying to say is that had Russia come with one or two reasonable demands most likely we would have conceded those demands. One of which could have been Ukraine signs into constitution they will never joins nato. Unlike what Putin offered, which is the political equivalent of making Putin king of NATO and cutting the hands off of European common defense.
|
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2022 02:58
|
|
|
Conspiratiorist posted:Speaking of, someone asked upthread when all the forces would be in place, and the answer appears to be "really soon"; there haven't been fresh units sighted on rails for a couple days now. Maybe when the rail elements are back from Belarus there'll be another round of reinforcements, like the rest of the 1GTA or more VDV, or they just use them to start railing up personnel. The amphibious warships crossed Gibraltar a couple days ago and are maybe 4-7 days away from the Black Sea. Yeah it's the warships I believe are the best clock. Securing the Black Sea is an obvious priority, and adds to a multi-pronged attack. If they arrive and nothing happens for another week then this was just a very big step up in sabre rattling.
|
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2022 03:03
|
|
|
He basically wants any ex-Eastern Bloc country, Poland, and a couple others defanged, maybe not out of NATO but effectively incapable of participating in NATO.
|
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2022 03:05
|
|
|
Sinteres posted:We all agree that Ukraine isn't joining any time soon, so it still seems like a very easy guarantee to make, and very much a won't rather than can't situation. NATO already draws very clear lines between members and non-members, so stating the reality that not every non-member has access to being a member doesn't have to undermine the security of members. Oh, no, no. The NATO accession process is measured in years, so there's a huge difference between "any time soon" and "never"; you could conjure up a mandatory delay of several years and in the meantime Ukraine just does all the stuff they need to do during the process so that when the timer comes up they basically join immediately. This kind of concession would be a trap and Russia knows it. At the same time, NATO simply can't offer a public ironclad guarantee of forbidding a nation from joining because of the way the alliance is structured (couldn't even offer one for a delay, either), and none of the members can guarantee so unilaterally either because a treaty with the US/Germany/etc has no holding on NATO membership, nevermind international credibility issues for not backbiting on such a treaty down the line. And this is without getting into what it would mean for the alliance to publicly declare they're allowing Russia to dictate their membership.
|
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2022 03:06
|
|
|
Conspiratiorist posted:Oh, no, no. The NATO accession process is measured in years, so there's a huge difference between "any time soon" and "never"; you could conjure up a mandatory delay of several years and in the meantime Ukraine just does all the stuff they need to do during the process so that when the timer comes up they basically join immediately. This kind of concession would be a trap and Russia knows it. Each member has a veto (Greece blocked Macedonia for years), so it would be extremely easy for a major member to say yeah it's not happening on my watch period. Presumably the only reason none have done so, when some surely would prefer to (see Germany, which was making statements in that direction unprompted last year IIRC), is that it would be bad for unity to do so without any backing. And not getting one out of the many countries Russia didn't want to join when it already has territory occupied by Russia and therefore isn't eligible to join anyway doesn't seem like a catastrophic defeat for NATO to me. I mean Mongolia isn't going to join either, but I think the alliance will endure. Unless you're Poland or the Baltics, or just actively want to use the country to gently caress with Russia like Putin fears, Ukraine is more liability than asset, so even if you want to help them based on humanitarian reasons or whatever, if saying they won't join would spare them an invasion, it at least seems worth considering. Dr Kool-AIDS fucked around with this message at 03:18 on Jan 27, 2022 |
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2022 03:12
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:Their demand is nobody east of Eastern Germany can participate in NATO. That's a no go. No one negotiates without the first offer being a clear overreach. Even then, that isn't their demand even at face value. quote:Article 4 They want a pullback of non-state troops behind the first traunch of NATO eastward expansion. They can be in NATO and receive their article 5 guarantee but no peacetime deployments or exercises into those areas. A clear non-starter but they knew that. But they aren't asking for a rollback on NATO, just a cessation of further expansion onto their borders as can be seen in Articles 6 and 7. The rejection of any further expansion of NATO in their written reply earlier today seems so scatterbrained. This should be the easy part for all involved. Everyone can see that the US has no time for Ukraine and that it isn't a core interest. The Ukrainians now know for a fact, as indicated by their public frustrations with the US and Germany, that they are not a core interest. The Russians know that they have effectively proven that Ukraine is more of a core interest to them than it is to NATO and that further overreach just makes it harder for NATO to disengage without massive loss of face. No amount of wishful thinking will change that. A realist in Kyiv should see that it isn't going to be allowed to join the pack because the pack has no desire to start a fight with the starving wolf and that if it wants to survive and prevent further destabilization for its country, it needs to readjust its vision for the future. In no way is this fair or just but it isn't a fair or just world and it is unlikely to change in the near future.
|
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2022 03:15
|
|
|
Sinteres posted:Each member has a veto (Greece blocked Macedonia for years), so it would be extremely easy for a major member to say yeah it's not happening on my watch period. Presumably the only reason none have done so, when some surely would prefer to (see Germany, which was making statements in that direction unprompted last year IIRC), is that it would be bad for unity to do so without any backing. And not getting one out of the many countries Russia didn't want to join when it already has territory occupied by Russia and therefore isn't eligible to join anyway doesn't seem like a catastrophic defeat for NATO to me. I mean Mongolia isn't going to join either, but I think the alliance will endure. Unless you're Poland or the Baltics, or just actively want to use the country to gently caress with Russia like Putin fears, Ukraine is more liability than asset, so even if you want to help them based on humanitarian reasons or whatever, if saying they won't join would spare them an invasion, it at least seems worth considering. I find astonishing your ability to answer your own questions without realizing it.
|
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2022 03:16
|
|
|
Conspiratiorist posted:I find astonishing your ability to answer your own questions without realizing it. I suppose I did mention the possibility that some countries actually do want to use Ukraine to gently caress with Russia, yeah. I assume what you meant is that this is all about reassuring Poland and the Baltics, but if giving them NATO membership didn't make them feel safe, why would continuing to make empty promises to Ukraine make them feel safe?
|
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2022 03:18
|
|
|
Basically yes, this entire situation can be resolved if we all collectively and publicly admit that NATO is a loving sham. That ain't happening.
|
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2022 03:19
|
|
|
Conspiratiorist posted:Basically yes, this entire situation can be resolved if we all collectively and publicly admit that NATO is a loving sham. ?? It's not a sham, the security guarantee for actual members is very real, or at least everyone has every reason to continue pretend it is if it isn't. Nothing that happens to a non-member who isn't eligible to join is relevant to that.
|
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2022 03:20
|
|
|
The collective security guarantee (ie: Article 5 etc) is meaningless without having some credibility that it will actually be followed up on in time of conflict by the rest of NATO (primarily, but not exclusively the US). Sure, Ukraine is a non-member, so is of course not covered by this guarantee. But if NATO shows that it will hem and haw and make unilateral concessions the moment Russia applies pressure on it (through its demands, threats over gas supplies and of course threats toward Ukraine) that certainly would undermine the principle of collective security upon which NATO is based - by demonstrating that there is not the political will to resist Russian threats/beligerence. And if NATO isn't willing to stand up to Russia when there is relatively little risk of a direct conflict between the two (ie: Russian tanks aren't going to be rolling into the Fulda Gap - any fighting that takes place would be a localised conflict involving Ukraine), can it be trusted to maintain the principle of collective security and stand up to an emboldened Russia that may subsequently start making threats and noises elsewhere, like the Baltics?
|
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2022 03:49
|
|
|
It's just NATO is running into the limits of power projection. If Russia were threatening Ireland, also a non-NATO member, they'd be able to shut that down instantly.
|
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2022 03:57
|
|
|
Morrow posted:It's just NATO is running into the limits of power projection. If Russia were threatening Ireland, also a non-NATO member, they'd be able to shut that down instantly. Why would NATO want to expand anywhere but the north Atlantic?
|
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2022 04:02
|
|
|
WAR CRIME GIGOLO posted:Why would NATO want to expand anywhere but the north Atlantic? The noted local power the graveyard of the Atlantic.
|
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2022 04:09
|
|
|
Tigey posted:The collective security guarantee (ie: Article 5 etc) is meaningless without having some credibility that it will actually be followed up on in time of conflict by the rest of NATO (primarily, but not exclusively the US). This is the same credibility gap bullshit that the US trots out for every single war. NATO obligates members to defend each other, not anyone in their proximity to make border states feel more secure. Again, I understand why the Baltics and Poland might want Ukraine in the alliance, but since it's not, there's no obligation. Poland and the Baltics should just be happy they made it in and don't have to provide their own security instead of obligating the US to ever-expanding security needs beyond their borders.
|
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2022 04:11
|
|
|
Tigey posted:The collective security guarantee (ie: Article 5 etc) is meaningless without having some credibility that it will actually be followed up on in time of conflict by the rest of NATO (primarily, but not exclusively the US). That is explicitly the point that Russia is making right now. In their minds, there is no reason to expand NATO eastward. The raison d'etre for NATO was to counter the Soviet Bloc, which no longer exists. NATO's frontier used to be Central Europe. NATO expansion occurred when the supposed threat to it was at is absolute weakest in the immediate years after the collapse of the Soviet Union. Any expansion eastward, since there was no threat to counter, must be viewed in the lens of putting troops belonging to the core NATO countries closer to Russia - ergo a threat. Russia is simultaneously drawing a line in the sand on Ukraine and also making every single member of the 1st and 2nd traunch expansions of NATO question just how committed the heavy lifters of NATO are to its cause should a crisis situation hit. Posters here keep saying Putin wants to restore the USSR. I doubt that. Russia and Putin definitely understand they are no longer a Great Power but neither are they just a trash heap that can be ignored and taken for granted. They are remolding themselves into a regional power and showing that they clearly have interests both in the economic and security sphere and that should a conflict arise, you shouldn't look westward for backup. Perhaps it is time to take a less western-centric approach and see what the new Russia has to offer in return for a modicum of respect and cooperation. Just as how any sovereign nation in the New World has must defer to the United States with respect to how it view the security situation there. Ex. No matter how much money the PRC might plow into some minor Central or South American country, it is unlikely they will ever simply allow basing rights for the PRC military because just the idea of it will piss Washington off to no end. What doesn't help Putin and his cause is the fact that his regime is undeniably authoritarian and by nature, is viewed with instinctual distrust by democratic societies, even in those countries that have only converted to it within a generation.
|
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2022 04:20
|
|
|
I think if Russia wanted an actual negotiation, they still could’ve came in with a strong position related to Ukraine, the country everyone is nominally worried about at this point. Trying to bully NATO by threatening to shoot their hostage was never going to work, and Russia knows it. They could also try and negotiate some reforms to NATO without starting a shooting war in a third-party, non-NATO country. Hell, maybe they could do something crazy and negotiate with Ukraine!
|
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2022 04:28
|
|
|
Dreissi posted:
That would require Putin to be able of understanding that Ukrainians are people with their own ideas, but sadly he is a racist who thinks they can only do what told by their "betters", and therefore clearly he can just skip to the real decision makers. (He is hardly the only notable person in that country with that view, and it's hardly uncommon among "liberal" "opposition").
|
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2022 04:39
|
|
|
Here's a fun thought experiment: keep all the variables the same except swap Ukraine for Poland. What does NATO do when it's a member state under threat? That's a good idea of what NATO *could* do vs what they will do. Also, NATO comprises a decent amount of ex-Soviet satellites. I was too young to pay attention to these things then, but what was Russia's reaction to the Czech Republic, Hungary, and Poland joining in 1999, vs Bulgaria, the Baltics, Romania, and Slovakia in 2004, and again with Albania in 2009. Has Russia's reaction to these events increasingly escalated as more former Soviet republics turned to the west? They use the argument about being boxed in as a routine go-to, but the only time I can remember Russia using that and seeming to actually mean it has been with Ukraine. The military buildup seems to confirm this to me HonorableTB fucked around with this message at 04:46 on Jan 27, 2022 |
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2022 04:41
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:The noted local power the graveyard of the Atlantic. Doggerland will become a member of NATO before Ukraine
|
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2022 04:41
|
|
|
HonorableTB posted:Here's a fun thought experiment: keep all the variables the same except swap Ukraine for Poland. What does NATO do when it's a member state under threat? That's a good idea of what NATO *could* do vs what they will do It's obvious, isn't it? Donbas never would have been allowed to happen at all and US armored divisions would already be rolling to the Polish Belorussian border. If NATO allows anything like what happened in the Ukraine in 2014, much less even the possibility of an invasion with any degree of hesitation, NATO is dead on the spot. Hence the hardline stance on Ukraine and Georgia in 2008. The moment NATO membership is granted, Russia's freedom of action is curtailed since it and NATO knows failure to defend its own will lead to dissolution. Russia would much rather play this game of chicken whenever there is a conflict of interest in its border states when NATO has the option of gracefully backing out without the possibility of an existential crisis.
|
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2022 04:49
|
|
|
HonorableTB posted:Here's a fun thought experiment: keep all the variables the same except swap Ukraine for Poland. What does NATO do when it's a member state under threat? That's a good idea of what NATO *could* do vs what they will do. The Baltics are the only actual Soviet republics to join, and they made for the door fast, plus they aren't as large or historically tied to Russia as Ukraine. If they were doing it in 2022, there's no chance they'd get away with it either though. Certainly not Estonia and Latvia at least.
|
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2022 04:51
|
|
|
After the influx of russia explainers several days ago this discussion stopped making any kind of sense. Its not about Ukraine joining or not joining NATO. Its about Putin gaining a win of some sort, which in this case the west accepting that Moscow gets to decide what happens within its sphere of influence and for this sphere getting recognized in the first place. Murky German geniuses call it "giving Russia a bunch of respect" except they dont want respect for respect's sake they want poo poo to get back to USSR days without actually doing any work. loving Germany is being megastupid right now if they think their "respect" will achieve anything lasting. You either accept that Russia rules EE because they bullied you or prepare for another conflict in a couple of months. And why not central europe too if its so easy? Not even a war requred, just rattle the sabers a bit and Germany rushes to suck your dick. Ridiculous part is theyill probably be very proud of their peaceful stance whoch costs them nothing while screwing over the EE. wonder if they release GDR as well for "peace".
|
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2022 04:52
|
|
|
HonorableTB posted:Here's a fun thought experiment: keep all the variables the same except swap Ukraine for Poland. What does NATO do when it's a member state under threat? That's a good idea of what NATO *could* do vs what they will do. Article IV gets invoked and Russia is told in very clear terms to watch its poo poo lest it trigger a collective response from NATO and, in turn, nuclear war
|
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2022 04:53
|
|
|
Sekenr posted:wonder if they release GDR as well for "peace". That would be the one silver lining - an opportunity to correct the disastrous historic mistake of German reunification
|
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2022 04:57
|
|
|
Sekenr posted:After the influx of russia explainers several days ago this discussion stopped making any kind of sense. Its not about Ukraine joining or not joining NATO. Its about Putin gaining a win of some sort, which in this case the west accepting that Moscow gets to decide what happens within its sphere of influence and for this sphere getting recognized in the first place. Murky German geniuses call it "giving Russia a bunch of respect" except they dont want respect for respect's sake they want poo poo to get back to USSR days without actually doing any work. There's no plausible future where Russia attacks Germany or even Poland, come on. The moral argument is the better one to make than a hysterical slippery slope that leads to Germany being sundered anew by a resurgent and unchecked Russia that has, as its critics in the thread have pointed out, a tiny economy. Even if they annexed Ukraine outright, which I don't think anyone really expects, this version of Russia would still be a joke compared to the Soviet Union, so trying to ignite the old Cold War fears just doesn't hit the same.
|
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2022 04:57
|
|
|
Sinteres posted:The Baltics are the only actual Soviet republics to join, and they made for the door fast, plus they aren't as large or historically tied to Russia as Ukraine. If they were doing it in 2022, there's no chance they'd get away with it either though. Certainly not Estonia and Latvia at least. Sorry, I should have specified "former republics AND ex-Warsaw Pact members" Edit: Here's something I didn't know about NATO! "Article 6 states that the treaty covers only member states' territories in Europe and North America, and islands in the North Atlantic north of the Tropic of Cancer, plus French Algeria. It was the opinion in August 1965 of the US State Department, the US Defense Department and the legal division of NATO that an attack on the U.S. state of Hawaii would not trigger the treaty, but an attack on the other 49 would." HonorableTB fucked around with this message at 05:05 on Jan 27, 2022 |
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2022 04:58
|
|
|
They don't want to annex Ukraine, they want to ruin Ukraine. To show that you fucken die without mother russia. Like you said they are no good at economy, they know it, so wont try to compete there. As for GDR, why not? If all it costs is just troops movements an a lot of hysterical statements. Of course they won't attack Germany or Poland or for that matter Ukraine as well. They dont need to if they get what they want with a bit of bullying. E: hah, LOL at Hawaii, I wonder who came up with it and why Sekenr fucked around with this message at 05:12 on Jan 27, 2022 |
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2022 05:06
|
|
|
Sekenr posted:They don't want to annex Ukraine, they want to ruin Ukraine. To show that you fucken die without mother russia. Like you said they are no good at economy, they know it, so wont try to compete there. As for GDR, why not? If all it costs is just troops movements an a lot of hysterical statements They're literally already occupying part of Ukraine, so troop movements on the border have more credibility there, particularly with the lack of NATO membership. Threatening Germany isn't remotely credible, knowing they'd have to fight through other NATO members just to reach one the US has been defending for more than half a century, which is why Russia doesn't do it. NATO members and non-members aren't the same. If the Baltics suspect that they and Germany aren't the same, they might be right too (I hope we never find out), but they're still in a much better position than Ukraine, and I think there's enough credibility to that commitment that Russia will never overtly test it. FWIW I think the far bigger threat to NATO than Russia is countries within NATO turning away from democracy and shared values and all that. Not that NATO was perfectly in alignment even during the Cold War, but when even the political future of the US is in question, I think that's a serious concern for the alliance. Fortunately for countries like the Baltics, they're also in the EU, which still has one member with nuclear weapons, so I don't think they're entirely dependent on the US, but obviously they'll be more dismayed than just about anyone if the US ever does withdraw/lose interest. Dr Kool-AIDS fucked around with this message at 05:13 on Jan 27, 2022 |
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2022 05:10
|
|
|
Sinteres posted:They're literally already occupying part of Ukraine, so troop movements on the border have more credibility there, particularly with the lack of NATO membership. Threatening Germany isn't remotely credible, knowing they'd have to fight through other NATO members just to reach one the US has been defending for more than half a century, which is why Russia doesn't do it. NATO members and non-members aren't the same. If the Baltics suspect that they and Germany aren't the same, they might be right too (I hope we never find out), but they're still in a much better position than Ukraine, and I think there's enough credibility to that commitment that Russia will never overtly test it. Well, thank god at least Germany is safe for now
|
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2022 05:13
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 28, 2024 12:31 |
|
|
Sinteres posted:There's no plausible future where Russia attacks Germany or even Poland, come on. The moral argument is the better one to make than a hysterical slippery slope that leads to Germany being sundered anew by a resurgent and unchecked Russia that has, as its critics in the thread have pointed out, a tiny economy. Even if they annexed Ukraine outright, which I don't think anyone really expects, this version of Russia would still be a joke compared to the Soviet Union, so trying to ignite the old Cold War fears just doesn't hit the same. There is a plausible future for Germany being vulnerable to Russia, but the only way I can see is that the US has splintered or in some other way collapsed and that's how NATO would fail. But how, when, and the odds of that happening no one has a clue about, so for the time being it'd be meaningless to worry about. NATO is weaker than before, but as long as the US sees it as key to its strategic goals it isn't going anywhere. And I seriously doubt Russia intends to personally test Article 5, ever, it will never be worth the risk.
|
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2022 05:14
|
|