3 ms·

Satellite Images Show Russia’s Expanding Ukraine Buildup

5 points by cwwc 6y ago

ggm 6y ago
Please don't take this as "whataboutism" -this is a genuine question. If Mexico or Canada turned into a ferally dis-aligned, departing relationship vis-a-vis the USA, bearing in mind that in times past it had been a paper-thin border, and now its aligning to a political force (eg LAC, or some fictional north-arctic political union) which is strongly oppositional to you, the US, what would you do? Would you not bulk up your forces close to the border? because political relationships between Ukraine and Russia are pretty low. I am not trying to lay blame, I'm just observing this is in a very limited sense, "rational" behaviour. I'm hypothesising something as different as Venezuela, but butting right up to the border. Probably, for mexico it would be about re-awakening Aztlan dreams of recovery of Texas, or lands north of the Rio Grande. For Canada, it would be about Alaska and Oil, and a future bridge or tunnel to Russia, or navigation rights through the Arctic, or Assets in Greenland. Imagine the posture changed: the DEW line, is now 200% more expensive and you're going to be booted out, and loose access to timber, oil and Uranium.. How would the US react? "reclaim Boston" and a hot border war only 5-10 years old. Maybe, this is closer to the situation in the war of 1812
- simonblack 6y ago
  For a closer analogy, I suggest the Cuban Missile Crisis of 1962.
  - ggm 6y ago
    Well, closer in time, but, I don't think this is a closer analogy, because in that case the USSR was materially altering the balance of force close to the angry neighbour. They didn't put nukes across the aleutians, they moved them to the eastern seaboard, where the border had previously been several thousands of km away on that side. The rockets threatened Washington. I know ICBM always threatened washington, but this moved INF class devices closer. Its a sub-orbital pop up. It was a really strong threat. The Ukraine was literally part of russia in time past, within living memory as a political sub-unit, one of the SSR in the USSR. It was notionally a friend, part of the border butress to the west. It was inside the iron curtain. It moved across the curtain. Its a shift of less than 600km. This is not moving things thousands of km, its waking up finding your next door neighbour has changed. In the logic at-hand here, Russia is angry, and making aggressive moves, but in the internal logic, its "defensive" I don't think its defensive at all btw. But, I can see how it might sell domestically. "we thought the Ukraine was our friend and now they want to join NATO like poland, and look how well that worked out for us"
    - simonblack 6y ago
      You don't think that the US/NATO "was materially altering the balance of force close to the angry neighbour." by placing forces and weapons in the Ukraine? That's very close to the Soviets placing forces and weapons in Cuba in 1962. I seem to remember lots of hissy fits in Washington at that time. Why shouldn't Moscow have a hissy fit now when the reciprocal situation has arisen?
      - ggm 6y ago
        Oh right, I think I see now/ Yes. the cuban missile crisis is a far better "fit" than I thought.

5 points by cwwc 6y ago

ggm 6y ago

Please don't take this as "whataboutism" -this is a genuine question. If Mexico or Canada turned into a ferally dis-aligned, departing relationship vis-a-vis the USA, bearing in mind that in times past it had been a paper-thin border, and now its aligning to a political force (eg LAC, or some fictional north-arctic political union) which is strongly oppositional to you, the US, what would you do? Would you not bulk up your forces close to the border? because political relationships between Ukraine and Russia are pretty low. I am not trying to lay blame, I'm just observing this is in a very limited sense, "rational" behaviour. I'm hypothesising something as different as Venezuela, but butting right up to the border. Probably, for mexico it would be about re-awakening Aztlan dreams of recovery of Texas, or lands north of the Rio Grande. For Canada, it would be about Alaska and Oil, and a future bridge or tunnel to Russia, or navigation rights through the Arctic, or Assets in Greenland. Imagine the posture changed: the DEW line, is now 200% more expensive and you're going to be booted out, and loose access to timber, oil and Uranium.. How would the US react? "reclaim Boston" and a hot border war only 5-10 years old. Maybe, this is closer to the situation in the war of 1812

simonblack 6y ago
For a closer analogy, I suggest the Cuban Missile Crisis of 1962.
- ggm 6y ago
  Well, closer in time, but, I don't think this is a closer analogy, because in that case the USSR was materially altering the balance of force close to the angry neighbour. They didn't put nukes across the aleutians, they moved them to the eastern seaboard, where the border had previously been several thousands of km away on that side. The rockets threatened Washington. I know ICBM always threatened washington, but this moved INF class devices closer. Its a sub-orbital pop up. It was a really strong threat. The Ukraine was literally part of russia in time past, within living memory as a political sub-unit, one of the SSR in the USSR. It was notionally a friend, part of the border butress to the west. It was inside the iron curtain. It moved across the curtain. Its a shift of less than 600km. This is not moving things thousands of km, its waking up finding your next door neighbour has changed. In the logic at-hand here, Russia is angry, and making aggressive moves, but in the internal logic, its "defensive" I don't think its defensive at all btw. But, I can see how it might sell domestically. "we thought the Ukraine was our friend and now they want to join NATO like poland, and look how well that worked out for us"
  - simonblack 6y ago
    You don't think that the US/NATO "was materially altering the balance of force close to the angry neighbour." by placing forces and weapons in the Ukraine? That's very close to the Soviets placing forces and weapons in Cuba in 1962. I seem to remember lots of hissy fits in Washington at that time. Why shouldn't Moscow have a hissy fit now when the reciprocal situation has arisen?
    - ggm 6y ago
      Oh right, I think I see now/ Yes. the cuban missile crisis is a far better "fit" than I thought.