|
fivegears4reverse posted:Like those experts, you consistently and unfailing suggest that their will and their sovereignty is secondary to Russia's. I'm not suggesting that at all. What I am suggesting, however, is that the US and Western Europe's interests do not align 100% with Ukraine's and the Baltics States'. This is a factor that you seem not to be taking into account: starting a new Cold War with Russia over these countries doesn't serve the interests of the US, Western Europe, or indeed, everybody else in the world. I understand that there are people in these countries, and that they ought to be able to choose the bloc with whom they want to align themselves, if any. In a perfect world, that would be all we would need to know. But unfortunately, we don't live in a perfect world. The US and Western Europe have interests of their own, and they know that they are going to have to plot their future moves out very, very carefully and deliberately. Rushing headlong into the fray is a recipe for disaster for everybody involved. Blind adherence to principle is fine for a college freshman, but it's a terrible way to run your foreign policy, especially when you're a nuclear power dealing with another nuclear power. quote:You keep insisting that Russia was some sort of pathetic paper tiger in the 90s, but they still had a significantly larger military than any former Soviet state, and still possessed the greatest number of nukes. That you and those experts essentially believe that wanting a sense of security in the face of that is not only wrong Nobody is suggesting that it was wrong for those states to seek NATO membership. In fact, I've said the opposite quite a few times by now. What I am arguing, and what the cited foreign policy experts predicted, is that NATO expansion into Eastern Europe will not, in fact, enhance Eastern European security and stability in the long-run. It may have done so in the short-term, but it has also radicalized the Russian public, convincing them that we are out to weaken them again, as we did in the 90's. It was a solution that seemed all very nice on paper, and was in line with our principles of letting populations decide what policy their country was going to adopt. But it didn't consider the long-term implications, and now Eastern Europe may turn out to be much worse off than it would have been otherwise. A note to everybody: I think we've reached an impasse on the topic of alternate history, and what would have been the best option to secure Eastern Europe while minimizing Russia's compulsions to be aggressive. I'm pretty stuck to my position, and it seems to me that the rest of you are pretty firmly stuck to yours, and that's okay - I'm content to agree to disagree on this subtopic. If we still want to keep discussing that issue, that's fine with me. But I also think it would be more productive if we discussed the future of this situation: what the US and Western Europe should do to defuse the Ukrainian crisis, what NATO's future should be, what the Eastern European NATO and non-NATO states should do, what all of us can do to defuse Russia's current state of craziness, etc. Let me know what you all think. 
Majorian fucked around with this message at 19:03 on Mar 5, 2015 |
#
?
Mar 5, 2015 18:53
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 5, 2024 11:42 |
|
|
Where are you going, Laura? Nowhere...fast.
|
|
#
?
Mar 5, 2015 19:30
|
|
|
"I'm gone. Long gone. Like a turkey in the corn."
|
|
#
?
Mar 5, 2015 19:55
|
|
|
Yes, blind adherence to principal is a lovely way to conduct a discussion. You just happen to be blindly adherent to the concept that Eastern Europe is unable to decide it's own allegiances and alliances without Russia being forced to respond. The onus was, and still is on Russia to not continue it's current course. Their entitlement to a sphere of influence should not supercede the rights of their neighbors to live with some guarantee of security, one that Russia is unwilling to provide. fivegears4reverse fucked around with this message at 21:32 on Mar 5, 2015 |
|
#
?
Mar 5, 2015 21:29
|
|
|
Majorian, is there anything that could happen in the real world that would convince you your theory is incorrect? As I see it, if Russia is aggressive, your theory is right, and if Russia is not aggressive, your theory is right. No matter what Russia does, it's because it wasn't part of NATO in the nineties. Is the theory in any way falsifiable? Can any fact argue against the theory? We had decreases in tensions, we had reduction of forces in Europe, and Russia is only more aggressive. Your theory neatly ignores this by saying the only thing that matters is a brief point in time in the nineties. So, going forward, what could possibly happen to change that?
|
|
#
?
Mar 5, 2015 21:37
|
|
|
fivegears4reverse posted:Yes, blind adherence to principal is a lovely way to conduct a discussion. You just happen to be blindly adherent to the concept that Eastern Europe is unable to decide it's own allegiances and alliances without Russia being forced to respond. That has nothing to do with principle. I assure you, your principles and mine are 100% the same on this issue. The difference is, I realize that the West's ability to actually enforce those principles at the moment is blunted. Best Friends posted:Majorian, is there anything that could happen in the real world that would convince you your theory is incorrect? As I see it, if Russia is aggressive, your theory is right, and if Russia is not aggressive, your theory is right. No matter what Russia does, it's because it wasn't part of NATO in the nineties. Is the theory in any way falsifiable? Can any fact argue against the theory? Well, the problem is, it's a counterfactual, so we can't be 100% certain what would have happened if other choices had been made. The theory that the cited experts put forth and that I agree with would have been proven wrong if one of two sets of circumstances had happened: A, NATO lets the former Eastern Bloc states in, and Russia does not go down the road of nationalism (or at least is significantly less nationalistic or aggressive than it is in the real world); or B, NATO doesn't let those states in, and Russia still goes down the road of nationalism, to the degree that it has in the real world. Majorian fucked around with this message at 21:41 on Mar 5, 2015 |
|
#
?
Mar 5, 2015 21:37
|
|
|
Majorian posted:That has nothing to do with principle. I assure you, your principles and mine are 100% the same on this issue. The difference is, I realize that the West's ability to actually enforce those principles at the moment is blunted. Yes, when one side resorts to using underhanded military tactics to fight diplomacy, those seeking to use diplomacy are generally blunted.
|
|
#
?
Mar 5, 2015 21:41
|
|
|
The simple answer is as far as NATO goes, there was little chance of not pissing off Russia but at the same time there wasn't the possibility of ever "putting Russia down for good." I don't think this was always inevitable, but between the CFMA which in essence gave Putin a secure source of funding (energy), austerity in Europe and a general security pullback ultimately created the conditions of a resurgent Russia that we were now only willing to stop so far. It is the problem ultimately with having an enemy that you only half-defeated then walking away. Ardennes fucked around with this message at 22:02 on Mar 5, 2015 |
|
#
?
Mar 5, 2015 21:44
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:Yes, when one side resorts to using underhanded military tactics to fight diplomacy, those seeking to use diplomacy are generally blunted. Well, but also, when a significant part of an alliance has no interest in going to war over a weak ally, efforts to intervene militarily are general blunted.
|
|
#
?
Mar 5, 2015 21:44
|
|
|
Majorian posted:
I get that, but going forward with the world we're in, is there any evidence that could possibly discount your theory? It sounds like no? edit - by implication, the only reason we'd talk or care about historical counterfactuals is to inform current models and understanding. So beyond just the counterfactual, your general theory overall, can it be in any way disproven?
|
|
#
?
Mar 5, 2015 21:51
|
|
|
Best Friends posted:I get that, but going forward with the world we're in, is there any evidence that could possibly discount your theory? It sounds like no? What could undermine it going forward is if the US offers arms reductions and a promise to not let Ukraine into NATO anytime soon if Russia leaves Ukraine alone, and then Russia doesn't leave Ukraine alone. (or if Russia rejects the offer) My theory is, this is mostly about strategic alliances and perceived geopolitical encirclement; let's see if I'm right. e: And yes, before somebody pipes up and says, "Oh, you see? You don't care about the will of the Ukrainian people!", I do. But I'm also clued in enough to realize that NATO isn't going to let Ukraine in anytime soon no matter what happens. We may as well formalize it and get Russia to lay off. Majorian fucked around with this message at 22:07 on Mar 5, 2015 |
|
#
?
Mar 5, 2015 22:02
|
|
|
Majorian posted:What could undermine it going forward is if the US offers arms reductions and a promise to not let Ukraine into NATO anytime soon if Russia leaves Ukraine alone, and then Russia doesn't leave Ukraine alone. (or if Russia rejects the offer) My theory is, this is mostly about strategic alliances and perceived geopolitical encirclement; let's see if I'm right. To be honest, I think that is the problem with using a rigid ideological framework that throws out history, Ukraine is economically, politically and historically important to Russia and it isn't a optional country as far as their foreign policy. This isn't such a good thing for the Ukrainians but their only alternative if being more valuable to the West than they are to Russia.
|
|
#
?
Mar 5, 2015 22:05
|
|
|
Majorian posted:What could undermine it going forward is if the US offers arms reductions and a promise to not let Ukraine into NATO anytime soon if Russia leaves Ukraine alone, and then Russia doesn't leave Ukraine alone. (or if Russia rejects the offer) My theory is, this is mostly about strategic alliances and perceived geopolitical encirclement; let's see if I'm right. I sincerely doubt this would have any affect other than pissing off the Ukrainians and encouraging Putin. He just annexed a country prior to this, I don't think he's really in this to stop Ukraine from joining NATO, because it wasn't even going to happen prior to the Crimea event.
|
|
#
?
Mar 5, 2015 22:07
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:I sincerely doubt this would have any affect other than pissing off the Ukrainians and encouraging Putin. He just annexed a country prior to this, I don't think he's really in this to stop Ukraine from joining NATO, because it wasn't even going to happen prior to the Crimea event. Well, hold on a second. First of all, what other country did he annex? Secondly, what makes you think that NATO accession wasn't going to happen prior to the Crimea event, when a pro-Western government had just overthrown the pro-Moscow one? Ardennes posted:To be honest, I think that is the problem with using a rigid ideological framework that throws out history, Ukraine is economically, politically and historically important to Russia and it isn't a optional country as far as their foreign policy. All true - so the question we have to ask ourselves is, how can we minimize the extent of Russia's domination of Ukraine? Because like it or not, Russia is probably going to have some level of sway over Ukraine or other for the foreseeable future.
|
|
#
?
Mar 5, 2015 22:10
|
|
|
Majorian posted:All true - so the question we have to ask ourselves is, how can we minimize the extent of Russia's domination of Ukraine? Because like it or not, Russia is probably going to have some level of sway over Ukraine or other for the foreseeable future. Legally? Supporting a hopefully long consistent history of free and fair elections. Also intermingling Ukrainian economics as much as possible with the west.
|
|
#
?
Mar 5, 2015 22:14
|
|
|
onemillionzombies posted:Legally? Supporting a future long consistent history of free and fair elections. In what sense? Morally? Financially? Militarily?
|
|
#
?
Mar 5, 2015 22:15
|
|
|
Majorian posted:In what sense? Morally? Financially? Militarily? All three if needed, ideally through soft power first. Depends on how aggressive you want to be. Clearly using the military directly risks indirect/direct conflict with Russia, but you have other assets to consider. onemillionzombies fucked around with this message at 22:20 on Mar 5, 2015 |
|
#
?
Mar 5, 2015 22:18
|
|
|
Majorian posted:Well, hold on a second. First of all, what other country did he annex? Secondly, what makes you think that NATO accession wasn't going to happen prior to the Crimea event, when a pro-Western government had just overthrown the pro-Moscow one? It wouldn't matter if a Pro-Western or Pro-Moscow government was seated in Ukraine, Ukraine was not in line to get into NATO, but was protected by NATO by a contract to which NATO and Ukraine agreed to when they gave up their nuclear weapons. What we are seeing today is the direct result of a bloated and purposefully corrupt Ukrainian government being deposed by a popular uprising, its suprising it didn't happen sooner considering what they found after raiding the Presidents home afterwords. But instead of actually supporting the people in free and open elections, Russia has taken to, under the cover of 'secrecy' annexing one country and militarily invading another. This does not sound like the actions of someone who is going to hope for a diplomatic end, nor wants one. Its like the Hungarian Uprising all over again, but with less outright massacring of the civilian population.
|
|
#
?
Mar 5, 2015 22:20
|
|
|
onemillionzombies posted:All three if needed, ideally through soft power first. Depends on how aggressive you want to be. What consequences, do you think, would occur if we were to adopt one or all of these strategies?
|
|
#
?
Mar 5, 2015 22:20
|
|
|
Majorian posted:All true - so the question we have to ask ourselves is, how can we minimize the extent of Russia's domination of Ukraine? Because like it or not, Russia is probably going to have some level of sway over Ukraine or other for the foreseeable future. Financial support pretty much, Ukraine is going to have to give up at some point because they are going to run out of cash in a literal sense. They can't borrow except from the IMF and the Hryvnia needs heavy support. onemillionzombies posted:Also intermingling Ukrainian economics as much as possible with the west. Eh that is complicated considering the more investment the West has in Ukraine, the more leverage Putin may have if he forces the government to terms. Basically it will work as long as Ukraine stays functionally independent. As far as free elections, elections only go so far if the government that is elected has no option but to rely on Putin for financial aid.
|
|
#
?
Mar 5, 2015 22:21
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:It wouldn't matter if a Pro-Western or Pro-Moscow government was seated in Ukraine, Ukraine was not in line to get into NATO, That's not what NATO said at the Bucharest Summit. They said that Georgia and Ukraine would certainly become NATO member states. quote:But instead of actually supporting the people in free and open elections, Russia has taken to, under the cover of 'secrecy' annexing one country Again, what country have they annexed?
|
|
#
?
Mar 5, 2015 22:21
|
|
|
Majorian posted:What consequences, do you think, would occur if we were to adopt one or all of these strategies? An escalated proxy war to what is already going on in Ukraine. If you actually used NATO troops on the ground in Ukraine then you clearly risk a direct confrontation with Russia.
|
|
#
?
Mar 5, 2015 22:23
|
|
|
Majorian posted:Again, what country have they annexed? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Autonomous_Republic_of_Crimea They were their own Parliamentary Republic inside Ukraine. I.e. Their own country. Majorian posted:That's not what NATO said at the Bucharest Summit. They said that Georgia and Ukraine would certainly become NATO member states. Its almost as if stepped up aggression was being taken into account at the summit or something. Either way, if you think a country that just possibly assassinated an opposition leader is going to deal in good faith with the West, I've got a bridge to sell you
|
|
#
?
Mar 5, 2015 22:26
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Autonomous_Republic_of_Crimea Ah but you see it was just somebody so enamored with Putin they murdered him in the most orchestrated and public way possible. Things just happen, and Putin shrugs!
|
|
#
?
Mar 5, 2015 22:29
|
|
|
Thanks for opening a separate thread Majorian, the topic of discussion here is very interesting to me and has been rather educational so far. I haven't seen a lot of suggestions from people on what the western powers can do right now or in the near future to improve the situation. The analysis of past actions and their consequences are very important I realize. However, I see very little talk about good ideas in the here and now. I probably shouldn't complain since I don't really have any good ideas either, but I'm sure some of the people reading this thread do and I'd love to hear them and have a reasonable discussion about those ideas.
|
|
#
?
Mar 5, 2015 22:34
|
|
|
/\/\/\My pleasure! Thanks for joining in!/\/\/\onemillionzombies posted:An escalated proxy war to what is already going on in Ukraine. If you actually used NATO troops on the ground in Ukraine then you clearly risk a direct confrontation with Russia. Good, then we agree on that part. This raises important questions, though: what good would either of these things accomplish? Would either wrest Ukraine out from under Russian control for very long? Would you lose fewer Ukrainian lives in the process? Would such a proxy war (or direct war) make it easier, or harder, for the US and its Western European allies to pursue their global interests? CommieGIR posted:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Autonomous_Republic_of_Crimea Well, but that's not really a country. That's like saying the Sakha Republic in the Russian Far East is a separate country. quote:Its almost as if stepped up aggression was being taken into account at the summit or something. That's called a self-fulfilling prophecy. By seeking to increase those states' security without considering the consequences, they (and we) ended up making them less secure. quote:Either way, if you think a country that just possibly assassinated an opposition leader is going to deal in good faith with the West, I've got a bridge to sell you Yes, because the US has never dealt with countries that assassinate opposition leaders. Majorian fucked around with this message at 23:04 on Mar 5, 2015 |
|
#
?
Mar 5, 2015 22:58
|
|
|
Lou Takki posted:Thanks for opening a separate thread Majorian, the topic of discussion here is very interesting to me and has been rather educational so far. The thing is, short of either doing whatever Russia wants, or outright war, NATO, the UN, and the EU are more or less doing what they can or are willing to do as far as discouraging Russia from its current course. Russia has shown the willingness to create provocations out of any and every action the West takes, and the rest of the world has to walk on eggshells when dealing with them because they have a massive nuclear arsenal.
|
|
#
?
Mar 5, 2015 23:05
|
|
|
fivegears4reverse posted:The thing is, short of either doing whatever Russia wants, or outright war, NATO, the UN, and the EU are more or less doing what they can or are willing to do as far as discouraging Russia from its current course. Russia has shown the willingness to create provocations out of any and every action the West takes, and the rest of the world has to walk on eggshells when dealing with them because they have a massive nuclear arsenal. But it's not just their nukes. They have a fairly powerful conventional army, they have economic leverage over a lot of Europe via their energy exports, they have a permanent vote on the UN Security Council, they can easily mess up our objectives in places like the Middle East, and they're quite simply a huge freaking country with lots of airspace that we routinely have to enter. So you can see why it's in the US' interests to keep Russia as friendly as possible.
|
|
#
?
Mar 5, 2015 23:25
|
|
|
Majorian posted:What could undermine it going forward is if the US offers arms reductions and a promise to not let Ukraine into NATO anytime soon if Russia leaves Ukraine alone, and then Russia doesn't leave Ukraine alone. (or if Russia rejects the offer) My theory is, this is mostly about strategic alliances and perceived geopolitical encirclement; let's see if I'm right. The U.S. is undoubtedly going to reduce its military in the next decade, just like we did in the 90s. As for an agreement with Russia note that Russia has not asked for this. This arms reduction / fear of U.S. arms thing is something that I think is peculiar to your theory and is another marker of your theory not reflecting reality. But, worth noting - the United States reduced arms in the 90s, and has been continually pulling out of Europe, especially under Bush. So have effectively done the thing you think we need to do, and yet we have still arrived at this reality. In years we'll find out what got offered in the ceasefire talks but I strongly suspect that privately it was communicated we will not include Ukraine in NATO if X Y and Z. Few I think suspect Russia plans on delivering on the ceasefire in the long haul, just like they didn't on the last one. Best Friends fucked around with this message at 23:33 on Mar 5, 2015 |
|
#
?
Mar 5, 2015 23:31
|
|
|
Majorian posted:But it's not just their nukes. They have a fairly powerful conventional army, they have economic leverage over a lot of Europe via their energy exports, they have a permanent vote on the UN Security Council, they can easily mess up our objectives in places like the Middle East, and they're quite simply a huge freaking country with lots of airspace that we routinely have to enter. True, it does make Russia right or at all justified in what it is doing, but it's true. At some point, my fear is not that the West will overstep it's bounds, but that Russia will manufacture an excuse to do so themselves.
|
|
#
?
Mar 5, 2015 23:31
|
|
|
Best Friends posted:The U.S. is undoubtedly going to reduce its military in the next decade, just like we did in the 90s. As for an agreement with Russia for that Russia has not asked for this. This arms reduction / fear of U.S. arms thing is something that I think is peculiar to your theory and is another marker of your theory not reflecting reality. I'm not 100% sure we're on the same page on this - Russia hasn't asked for anything, because they're not publicly admitting that they're supporting the separatists. This is why we have to suss out what they really want and engage them on this topic behind closed doors. Also, are you suggesting that Russia is not interested in further arms reduction treaties? Because I can guarantee you they are - it's something they're asking us for pretty regularly. They want to maintain strategic nuclear parity with the US without having to pay to maintain a bloated arsenal. quote:But, worth noting - the United States reduced arms in the 90s, and has been continually pulling out of Europe, especially under Bush. So have effectively done the thing you think we need to do, and yet we have still arrived at this reality. In terms of conventional forces, that is true. In terms of strategic capabilities, however, it's a different story. You must remember that the proposed ABM sites in Eastern Bloc countries really worried the Russian government and public. Also keep in mind that the Russians are still under the impression that Washington controls NATO's troops more directly than it actually does. To them, our drawing down our conventional presence there only looks like we're reshuffling the same small hand of cards over and over again. I'm not entirely sure how any of this constitutes NATO doing what I said we ought to do. fivegears4reverse posted:True, it does make Russia right or at all justified in what it is doing, but it's true. You're right, it doesn't justify it at all. But it also underlines for us how important it is to be deliberate in games of uneven perceptions. quote:At some point, my fear is not that the West will overstep it's bounds, but that Russia will manufacture an excuse to do so themselves. I doubt it. Russia's leaders are pretty keenly aware of their current economic and military limitations. They know they can't go on a real conquering spree anytime soon, and the economic picture is only looking worse for them down the line.
|
|
#
?
Mar 5, 2015 23:44
|
|
|
Majorian posted:You're right, it doesn't justify it at all. But it also underlines for us how important it is to be deliberate in games of uneven perceptions. This would assume Putin would be held back by his economic limitations. As for military limitations, what military limitations? They are only apparently as limited as the badges on their uniforms.
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2015 00:17
|
|
|
Majorian posted:Also, are you suggesting that Russia is not interested in further arms reduction treaties? Because I can guarantee you they are - it's something they're asking us for pretty regularly. They want to maintain strategic nuclear parity with the US without having to pay to maintain a bloated arsenal. Is there something beyond this that you're referring to? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_START And we've signed that. It's in place. And Russia has done all this anyway. That's what I keep circling back to - to the extent we have data, it seems to go contrary to your theory. Russia, like every other potential belligerent in the world (including us), has responded to weakening with aggression, rather than becoming more passive.
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2015 00:59
|
|
|
Best Friends posted:Is there something beyond this that you're referring to? Didn't Putin recently announce he is going to build more nukes? Yes he did: http://nypost.com/2014/09/10/russia-developing-new-nuclear-weapons-to-counter-us-nato/ Seriously, when has a Russian strong man character EVER responded to weakening diplomacy with diplomacy? CommieGIR fucked around with this message at 01:08 on Mar 6, 2015 |
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2015 01:03
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:This would assume Putin would be held back by his economic limitations. As for military limitations, what military limitations? They are only apparently as limited as the badges on their uniforms. Please. Russia's not in any shape to go to into another conflict beyond the one they're supplying in Ukraine. They're not going to attack the Baltics or Poland because they're NATO countries, they're not going to attack Belarus for obvious reasons, and they're not going to attack the Central Asian countries because he gets along well enough with leaders like Nazarbayev and Karimov. Moscow certainly doesn't have the motivation to risk becoming a true out-and-out pariah state. Putin is getting ready to cash in his chips in the conquering game; he knows he's been lucky up to this point, but won't push his luck that much further. Best Friends posted:Is there something beyond this that you're referring to? New START is a good thing, but it's a relatively limited arms reduction treaty, and it came after a real dearth of arms control efforts on the Bush Administration's fault. They want the ball to keep rolling, as it did from the 70's until the 90's. CommieGIR posted:Didn't Putin recently announce he is going to build more nukes? What is "weakening diplomacy"?
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2015 01:09
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:Its like the Hungarian Uprising all over again, but with less outright massacring of the civilian population. We all have been the victims and slaves of history since 9/11. At the end of the Cold War history 'ended' and we were free to build a New World Order with the goals of economic integration and the (messy but manageable) resolution of local strife (I/P, The Balkans, Rwanda, etc). Then you had people running things in America who still had old grudges with internationalists and the anti-war left - the invasions and occupations of Afghanistan and Iraq can be seen as attempts to recapitulate Vietnam. Putin has taken full advantage of this paradigm of nationalist rectification, and with the internet everything that happens is constantly compared to what happened before.
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2015 01:14
|
|
|
Majorian posted:Please. Russia's not in any shape to go to into another conflict beyond the one they're supplying in Ukraine. They're not going to attack the Baltics or Poland because they're NATO countries, they're not going to attack Belarus for obvious reasons, and they're not going to attack the Central Asian countries because he gets along well enough with leaders like Nazarbayev and Karimov. Moscow certainly doesn't have the motivation to risk becoming a true out-and-out pariah state. Putin is getting ready to cash in his chips in the conquering game; he knows he's been lucky up to this point, but won't push his luck that much further. Nobody is suggesting a Warsaw Pact invasion, but they are a true out and out pariah by simply annexing neighbors and invading Ukraine. That's good enough. Majorian posted:What is "weakening diplomacy"? Diplomacy with nothing to back it. Putin doesn't care about diplomacy. He's a Russian strong man. His recent moves against the opposition in Russia have made that clear. Majorian posted:New START is a good thing, but it's a relatively limited arms reduction treaty, and it came after a real dearth of arms control efforts on the Bush Administration's fault. They want the ball to keep rolling, as it did from the 70's until the 90's. START is basically out the window as far as Putin is concerned based on his recent statements.
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2015 01:14
|
|
|
No one in United States policy decision making just loves having thousands of nuclear weapons. Everyone's end goal is reducing the stockpile. I am super curious for any evidence you can find of the U.S. refusing to engage in strategic arms control with Russia.
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2015 01:19
|
|
|
Best Friends posted:I am super curious for any evidence you can find of the U.S. refusing to engage in strategic arms control with Russia. The push for the past 15 years to put missile defense systems in Eastern Europe to counter 'Iranian' ICBMs.
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2015 01:34
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 5, 2024 11:42 |
|
|
CommieGIR posted:Nobody is suggesting a Warsaw Pact invasion, but they are a true out and out pariah by simply annexing neighbors and invading Ukraine. That's good enough. You're exaggerating. Russia is far from a pariah state. The world still trades with it, nobody really wants to be its enemy, etc. North Korea is a pariah state, not Russia. quote:Diplomacy with nothing to back it. Putin doesn't care about diplomacy. He's a Russian strong man. His recent moves against the opposition in Russia have made that clear. This is such a silly statement. Diplomacy frequently works with strongmen and tinpot dictators. quote:START is basically out the window as far as Putin is concerned based on his recent statements. The fact that he's calling for the development of new weapons to replace old ones does not mean he's abrogating New START. There is no indication that Russia is going to expand its total arsenal to exceed the New START limitations. Best Friends posted:No one in United States policy decision making just loves having thousands of nuclear weapons. Everyone's end goal is reducing the stockpile. I am super curious for any evidence you can find of the U.S. refusing to engage in strategic arms control with Russia. This should give you a little more context. The Bush Administration basically flat-out refused to engage in more than a token, shallow arms control treaty (that being SORT, aka: The Moscow Treaty): quote:Press reports indicate that, within the Bush Administration, Pentagon officials argued strongly against incorporating any limits on offensive nuclear weapons in a “legally binding” arms control agreement. They wanted the United States to be able to reduce or increase its nuclear forces in response to changes in the international security environment. The whole thing is a fantastic read. The original piece came out back in '03, and was one of the reasons why I embarked on a career in arms control myself. Anyway, like I said, it provides some background. Now add this to the Bush Administration pulling out of the ABM Treaty and putting ABM sites in former Warsaw Pact states. For Russians, it painted a picture of an America that wasn't interested in arms control at all - it was interested in maintaining a nuclear breakout capability that could overwhelm anyone's second-strike weapons.
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2015 02:08
|
|