|
Inner Light posted:Hello thread people. What is the definition of neutral status in this context? I am seeing these words tossed around without an understanding of what it means for UKR. Some people mean neutral to mean like Finland, which despite pro-Western leanings isn't part of NATO. In practice, "neutral" means a Russian client-state, where Russian advisors and security services keep control over a pro-Western population with a collaboration government.
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2022 15:38
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 25, 2024 09:13 |
|
|
CommieGIR posted:Doesn't matter. If we fail to uphold the very idea of NATO common defense, NATO will quickly fall apart. We'd have to respond militarily in some way most likely, especially after what we've seen the past few days. And? If you operate from the position that a shooting war between NATO and Russia would result in nukes being dropped, why would a country risk its own extinction to fight a war a thousand miles away? The UK populace was only recently convinced to leave the EU against their own interests. Do you think that a British or American citizen is going to give a gently caress about international pariah status and support the leaders willing to trade New York City or London for an ultimately futile battle over North Macedonia?
|
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2022 15:39
|
|
|
TulliusCicero posted:This also was boosted by France kindly reminding Putin that NATO has nuclear weapons and MAD still applies when Putin started doing his Trump immitations about using them. Yeah that's the other part of this: Putin's flagrant display of ignorance was pretty striking, Putin knows if he hits a NATO member, there's likely a nuclear armed country that will have forces there. Trump posted:From what I've gathered, the Russians claims to have retaken Antonov/Hostomel Airport and blocked the western approaches to Kyiv. I have my doubts it's as clear cut as that. But considering the majority of Ukrainian forces would be to the west of Kyiv the city can still be reinforced. If I were the bulk of western Ukrainian forces, I'd be encouraging the Russians to try to get into an encirclement and then strike from the outside when they think they've enclosed the city. Baronash posted:And? If you operate from the position that a shooting war between NATO and Russia would result in nukes being dropped, why would a country risk its own extinction to fight a war a thousand miles away? Because, effectively, thats the entire point of NATO. You are basically saying "Why NATO anyways" which is a pretty bold take.
|
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2022 15:39
|
|
|
Samopsa posted:That's not to say Russia totally outclasses Ukraine in this engagement of course, but i don't see a quick end to this war one way or another. A prolonged urban fight over Kyiv and other cities will heavily impact Russian morale I would say. What are they even fighting for? How many true believers are there? On the other hand, after what I saw the past week I'd wager that a significant portion of the Ukrainian populace will fight to the last man. This^ Russian morale seems very low. Ukraine has grandmothers telling Russian soldiers to their face that they will die on their soil. That poo poo has to get to you if you were told the people would greet you as liberators.
|
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2022 15:39
|
|
|
cinci zoo sniper posted:https://www.politico.eu/article/eu-plans-to-freeze-russia-vladimir-putin-and-sergey-lavrov-assets/ Isn't Putin rumoured to be the wealthiest man in the world, which would mean that nobody really knows where his wealth is?
|
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2022 15:40
|
|
|
Dapper_Swindler posted:i dont think it will work I could see them attempt to conquer a bunch of territory on behalf of Donetsk and Luhansk
|
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2022 15:40
|
|
|
BIG FLUFFY DOG posted:you're thinking of the baltics. You're right! Whoops.
|
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2022 15:41
|
|
|
Deteriorata posted:
Except when you need to buy their gas a lot and sell them some diamonds.
|
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2022 15:41
|
|
|
Baronash posted:In all seriousness though, do you really think that England, France, or the US would consider an invasion of Estonia an "existential threat" to themselves? That a US president and US citizens would weather nuclear bombings as the unavoidable cost of defending freedom in Latvia? Sure, the US is sending troops there now as a show of force, but do you truly feel we would do the same if the build-up we saw in advance of this war was occurring on the borders of a NATO country? Bsically you screw over one member and the rest are gonna start to doubt if they are next and soon the alliance doesnt exist anymore.
|
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2022 15:41
|
|
|
I wonder how many NATO states will now increase their military spending to the supposedly required 2% of GDP? If nothing else this shoots Russian ambitions in Europe in the foot if this actually makes states take their NATO obligation seriously (which a lot haven't for a while).
|
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2022 15:41
|
|
|
Hiro Protagonist posted:I wonder what China thinks of all this, especially in regards to their own thing with Taiwan. I imagine it looks even less feasible, though let's be honest, an invasion of Taiwan would still be YEARS away even if they did see this war as successful enough to emulate/learn from. My (a nobody who knows nothing) assumption at the moment is that they are going to see this and think that they can take Taiwan without US interference because, duh the US is letting Russia take Ukraine and openly saying we're not going to stop them with force. I also think that this might legitimately change the thinking of the US and this might be the last straw and the US could decide it will never let a (West aligned) democratic nation get conquered again. China could easily assume the US will back down like it did here (or I guess not step up might be a better description for Ukraine than back down) and that miscalculation seems it could easily lead to war, as it has throughout history. I hope I am wrong (and I hopefully am because I know nothing) but the last few days have changed my entire view of world politics.
|
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2022 15:42
|
|
|
mrfart posted:Isn't Moldova landlocked by Ukraine? yeah it's not a requirement, a bunch of landlocked countries offer flags of convenience. including for eg mongolia, bolivia and even (i think) switzerland. but if its important, absolutely double check, again i am not a ship person boofhead fucked around with this message at 15:45 on Feb 25, 2022 |
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2022 15:43
|
|
|
StarBegotten posted:I wonder how many NATO states will now increase their military spending to the supposedly required 2% of GDP? I suspect a lot of the Eastern European, if not a lot of the EU nations are gonna start revamping some of their military spending. Germany is already talking about Army modernization.
|
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2022 15:43
|
|
|
Can anyone point me to any English language sources on how this conflict is being received in Russia (e.g. how the state media is reporting on it, what ordinary people are saying about the conflict on social media etc.)? I'm familiar with the protests that have been taking place, but is there any sign that there is any widespread public sentiment against the war?
|
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2022 15:43
|
|
|
TulliusCicero posted:This^ There is basically no population or area of the country that will be happy to see Russians show up. Even Syria, Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, etc had somewhere where people were happy to see the arriving armies. Russia already controls the Crimea and the propaganda videos from the eastern regions show that despite the bluster, they don't actually want to be Russian. Ukraine is "old-school" Europe in the sense that it's pretty mono-ethnic. It's why I can't fathom what the long-term end state looks like. How does Putin expect Ukraine to just shut up and take it without massive civilian deaths and an extremely long occupation?
|
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2022 15:43
|
|
|
Ghetto Prince posted:Most members would veto. If everyone had a stroke and Ukraine somehow became a member article 5 would still not be activated, it just takes one Russian commander panicking and ordering a tactical nuke, which is a capability they have, to maybe trigger a full exchange. This is dangerously close to WW3 talk, but while Russian doctrine on the use of tactical nukes is more 'open' than NATOs, it would take more than a Russian commander panicking to authorize their use. Furthermore, in most cases if a tactical nuclear weapon was deployed against a target that also had nuclear weapons, the danger is not immediate escalation to a strategic exchange. The most likely result is an in-kind response. The real danger is that once one tactical nuke is used, then lots will be used by both sides; and its when you have lots of tactical atomic weapons being deployed, it then starts to get dangerous as the thought is when enough of those tactical warheads go off, then the genie is out of the bottle and escalation to strategic use becomes far more likely. Edit And believe it or not, while people are right about international law being toothless, international norms it turns out are actually very constraining of the behaviors of nation states. This is why, for example, no nuclear power has used nuclear weapons--tactical or otherwise--in conflicts since 1945. Importantly even in conflicts where the other side is a non-nuclear power state/entity and the risk of nuclear retaliation of any kind is near zero. Though from what I understand G.W. Bush toyed around with deploying tactical warheads in both Iraq and Afghanistan, but even then it was ultimately decided that this was not allowable. ZombieLenin fucked around with this message at 15:50 on Feb 25, 2022 |
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2022 15:44
|
|
|
I don't know if I missed it while I was sleeping, but Russia is getting owned pretty badly here https://twitter.com/FSMPIO/status/1497073860352438272 StarBegotten posted:I wonder how many NATO states will now increase their military spending to the supposedly required 2% of GDP?
|
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2022 15:45
|
|
|
Pook Good Mook posted:...How does Putin expect Ukraine to just shut up and take it without massive civilian deaths and an extremely long occupation... He brought along mobile crematoriums for god's sake, it's not that big a stretch of the imagination....
|
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2022 15:45
|
|
|
ZombieLenin posted:This is dangerously close to WW3 talk, but while Russian doctrine on the use of tactical nukes is more 'open' than NATOs, it would take more than a Russian commander panicking to authorize their use. Furthermore, in most case if a tactical nuclear weapon was deployed against a target that also had nuclear weapons, the danger is not immediate escalation to a strategic exchange. The most likely result is an in-kind response. Yeah, tactical nukes would still require Putin to authorize their use in the field and PAL devices to be issued with codes. And once tactical weapons are used, its basically a hop skip and a jump to MAD.
|
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2022 15:45
|
|
|
TulliusCicero posted:This^ It is looking somewhat like Russia is biting off more than it can chew, although it's still early days. Difficult to say how Ukrainian resistance will continue to evolve
|
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2022 15:45
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:Because, effectively, thats the entire point of NATO. You are basically saying "Why NATO anyways" which is a pretty bold take. It's a question that's been asked from the very start, which is why the US has had to reassure allies (and remind adversaries) through tangible commitments like forces on the ground that the words on paper actually mean something and we wouldn't let them be conquered, but would instead fight even if it ensured our deaths. Obviously nobody knows if anyone actually would choose to extinguish humanity in a war (and it would never be a rational decision to do so), but the bluff has to at least be very convincingly made for the whole security system not to fall apart.
|
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2022 15:46
|
|
|
TheCardhouse posted:My (a nobody who knows nothing) assumption at the moment is that they are going to see this and think that they can take Taiwan without US interference because, duh the US is letting Russia take Ukraine and openly saying we're not going to stop them with force. I also think that this might legitimately change the thinking of the US and this might be the last straw and the US could decide it will never let a (West aligned) democratic nation get conquered again. China could easily assume the US will back down like it did here (or I guess not step up might be a better description for Ukraine than back down) and that miscalculation seems it could easily lead to war, as it has throughout history. Or you get a very dangerous arms race where Taiwan tries to buy as much anti-ship and anti-aircraft weaponry as possible. I also wonder what the Taiwanese calculation is for reactivating the nuclear weapon program.
|
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2022 15:46
|
|
|
mrfart posted:Isn't Moldova landlocked by Ukraine? Landlocked nations have every right to have their ships on the high seas. A lot of times they just sell their ship registries for cash like Panama and Liberia do to shipping countries that don’t like l or laws or taxes since there’s no sailor constituencies to worry about.
|
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2022 15:46
|
|
|
Pook Good Mook posted:There is basically no population or area of the country that will be happy to see Russians show up. Even Syria, Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, etc had somewhere where people were happy to see the arriving armies. Russia already controls the Crimea and the propaganda videos from the eastern regions show that despite the bluster, they don't actually want to be Russian. Really? Wasn't there someone in this very thread posting about their relatives in Kyiv who supported the invasion?
|
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2022 15:47
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:Because, effectively, thats the entire point of NATO. You are basically saying "Why NATO anyways" which is a pretty bold take. Sekenr posted:Bsically you screw over one member and the rest are gonna start to doubt if they are next and soon the alliance doesnt exist anymore. I don't know who these posts are supposed to be a response to? You say that NATO would collapse if the countries failed to uphold their commitments. I am not disagreeing with that. My point is: so what? If the threat of nuclear annihilation is truly on the table, would your populace choose A) Fight and die for the territorial integrity of Lithuania while their children back home die (if you believe folks who say any war between Russia and NATO would inevitably involve nukes) in nuclear armageddon B) Say "Oh geez, you're on your own" and let NATO disband
|
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2022 15:49
|
|
|
Blurred posted:Can anyone point me to any English language sources on how this conflict is being received in Russia (e.g. how the state media is reporting on it, what ordinary people are saying about the conflict on social media etc.)? I'm familiar with the protests that have been taking place, but is there any sign that there is any widespread public sentiment against the war? Living in a dictatorship, people know how to hide their feelings from the regime. Most of the population is not bothered by it as long as they have a job and are left alone.
|
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2022 15:49
|
|
|
Moldova actually seems to have an international port on the Danube.
|
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2022 15:49
|
|
|
TulliusCicero posted:Ukraine has grandmothers telling Russian soldiers to their face that they will die on their soil. Brutal.
|
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2022 15:49
|
|
|
mobby_6kl posted:I've been pretty disappointed by the reponse so far but I wouldn't transfer any of this to an in vasion of a NATO country. Unfortunately nobody really gives a poo poo about Ukraine and there are no legal obligations to help. Countries like Italy are more interested in selling Gucci couture to Russian oligarchs than responding to Putin's aggression, I don't see why they would react differently if say, Estonia was invaded. "well they have a treaty" doesn't seem like much. Treaties and international agreements get broken constantly, I don't see why the same actors who don't really care about Ukraine would be deeply concerned with the fate of Estonia.
|
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2022 15:50
|
|
|
TheRat posted:Isn't Putin rumoured to be the wealthiest man in the world, which would mean that nobody really knows where his wealth is? His personal assets are written to close friends (like the cellist Roldugin who was discovered holding enormous amounts of money in offshore accounts), so theoretically the proven connection may designate those people as "contaminated" PEPs and make their offshore shuffling more difficult.
|
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2022 15:50
|
|
|
Baronash posted:I don't know who these posts are supposed to be a response to? You're asking a hypothetical, the answer to which can only be known once the situation exists. You're clearly on the side of of "NATO will back down, it's a meaningless paper tiger". Maybe you're right, but you have nothing to back that with other than your gut feelings.
|
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2022 15:51
|
|
|
I wonder which is closest to the truth; U.S. media inflated Russian aircraft defense capability, Ukranian regulars have access to a lot more post-Soviet air defense tech than I thought they did, or Russian propaganda about how slippery its modern air inventory is was bullshit from the start. If half of these defense ministry downing reports are true it's gotta be one of them. Guess it doesn't have to be just one, either.
|
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2022 15:51
|
|
|
Pakled posted:Really? Wasn't there someone in this very thread posting about their relatives in Kyiv who supported the invasion?
|
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2022 15:51
|
|
|
Baronash posted:I don't know who these posts are supposed to be a response to? That's what we're saying: NATOs entire existence was about the common defense against a nuclear armed adversary using their threats to attack nations without them. You are basically suggesting the death of NATO, which right now doesn't appear to be on the table or likely. If Russia can use the threat of MAD to invade whomever they want and NATO does not respond (especially UK/US/France) then NATO will disappear overnight. And the populace doesn't really get a say in this. NATO is not some democratic institution.
|
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2022 15:51
|
|
|
Eric Cantonese posted:I suspect diamonds are also a handy alternative way for engaging in illegal transactions and/or laundering money. Haven't these rubes learned of Bitcoin yet? Yeesh.
|
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2022 15:51
|
|
|
TheRat posted:Isn't Putin rumoured to be the wealthiest man in the world, which would mean that nobody really knows where his wealth is? There are a ton of rumors about how wealthy he actually is, anything anyone says is pure speculation. That said, it's probably more important to understand just how much control he exerts over the Russian economy - this is probably untouchable by sanctions because we're talking about soft power and reaches into the upper echelons of every major Russian company (or at least the formerly state owned ones). It's similar to asking how wealthy Xi Jinping is - when you control the party, and that party has major stakes in companies and industries, do numbers on a balance sheet even matter?
|
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2022 15:52
|
|
|
StarBegotten posted:I wonder how many NATO states will now increase their military spending to the supposedly required 2% of GDP? Yeah, from a strategic security perspective this war is a disaster for Russia(even if it had been a great success). But then again, this has never really a been about Russia's security so he probably doesn't care much.
|
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2022 15:53
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:If I were the bulk of western Ukrainian forces, I'd be encouraging the Russians to try to get into an encirclement and then strike from the outside when they think they've enclosed the city. Might seem like the move, but I don't know if the Ukranians are setup for offensive actions of that size. Their advantage seems to be fighting from prepared positions, using Javelins and NLAWs. Trump fucked around with this message at 15:56 on Feb 25, 2022 |
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2022 15:53
|
|
|
Regarding Serbia and the former Yugoslavia it’s important to note that while there are historical ties associated with Russia and Serbia the situation now is much more complicated. Serbia bears a terrible grudge against the west for what it feels is unfair treatment when Yugoslavia broke up. But there’s younger people like myself who realize the old nationalist ways are pointless and don’t do much for the country. Tito knew the best way for the country’s survival was to take no sides and run an independent non alignment movement where he could play USA and Russia to gain the best advantage for Yugoslavia. When he died his successors had no idea or will to manage that delicate balancing act and thus you got the Yugoslav and Kosovo wars. Serbia as a country is fiercely independent in that they don’t like outside forces telling them how to run their affairs. At least that’s the attitude of people inside the country. More broadly the politics there are hosed up but are still in my opinion a lot more rational and an improvement over how it was in the 1990s. Serbia has been working towards greater integration with the EU over the protests of its old guard and boomer population who still bears a grudge for Kosovo. Like before it’s a balancing act. The leaders however corrupt they are know that if they lean too far to NATO or Russia they will face consequences so they try to ride the middle. Having said that if you look at Serbian arms procurement you’ll see they’re standardizing stuff like making their service rifles work with NATO ammunition so you can see which side they’re choosing even if they aren’t outright saying it. Serbia has a problem in that it’s major networks behave like Fox News and have a pro Trump bias and the simmering nationalism over their perceived losses means the president has to cater to nationalists by pretending he’s going to reoccupy Kosovo. I believe such things will never happen as he’s already got business interests there and people are making tons of money on various business interests there. From a purely material perspective there’s no need to annex Kosovo. It’s all just pandering and red meat to keep the nationalists on side. TL;DR: Serbia has had a long history of trying to go its own way between two superpowers and will align with whomever best benefits their own interests. Kraftwerk fucked around with this message at 15:57 on Feb 25, 2022 |
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2022 15:54
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 25, 2024 09:13 |
|
|
CommieGIR posted:Yeah, tactical nukes would still require Putin to authorize their use in the field and PAL devices to be issued with codes. The funny thing to me is that, if you look at nuclear doctrines amongst the nuclear powers, while it is true that Russia has a more liberal 'use case' scenario than most of NATO, it is France who has the most 'liberal' use policy of any nuclear state. This is Edit This is probably why Marcon was the one NATO leader willing to say, "shut up about nuclear war, Putin. Remember we are a 'strong nuclear weapons state' too." ZombieLenin fucked around with this message at 15:57 on Feb 25, 2022 |
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2022 15:55
|
|