4 ms·

There's NATO troops in the baltic states. 0 chance Russia sends in combat troops and if they did 0 chance NATO backs down. What's happened in the last ~10 yea

by treis 5y ago

There's NATO troops in the baltic states. 0 chance Russia sends in combat troops and if they did 0 chance NATO backs down. What's happened in the last ~10 years was that Ukraine was Russia's proxy, then the West's, and now it will be Russia's again. That's a very different story than one that starts with "was a member of NATO".

CRConrad 5y ago
Which makes NATO not only an arsehole but also a chump for not admitting Ukraine as a member at the latest shortly after Crimea.
- _Tev 5y ago
  So you are saying NATO should have started nuclear war because of Crimea? Because when you admit state that has part of it's territory occupied into a defense pact, you are effectively declaring war on the occupying state. Imo it's not quite arsehole thing to not start WWIII due to non-alliance country.
  - mantas 5y ago
    What is enough to start nuclear war then? Baltic states? Poland? Germany? UK?
    - _Tev 5y ago
      Yes, when you are in defense pact with nuclear powers, you have way better detterence on your side. Why is that so hard to understand? People are also forgetting that you can't just instantly admit Ukraine into NATO and instantly teleport all the alliance armies onto the battlefield. Trying to make it quicker would very likely just hasten the Russian invasion (because the head douche apparently wanted Ukraine all along), so it really boils down to "do you want to start throwing nukes for state that you never made nuke-backed promises to?" It's appalling how many people here are not seeing bigger picture and would love to just try to end humanity just because some nation got dealt _really_ bad cards. Economically Russia is cratering, so the impatience to end it all here (or in 2014) is just irrational. They were already losing technology (e.g. see how their space program is faltering), this will just accelerate Russia's slide into irrelevance. Even their weapons tech is not keeping up, see the latest kerfuffle in Caucasus: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2020_Nagorno-Karabakh_war https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2020_Nagorno-Karabakh_war
      - mantas 5y ago
        Actually, promises were made to Ukraine when it gave up it's share of Soviet nukes.
        _Tev 5y ago
        Yea, but that was weak at best https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Budapest_Memorandum_on_Security_Assurances#Analysis https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Budapest_Memorandum_on_Securit... Also the wording is fuzzy when it comes to conventional war, but maybe the wiki has wrong wording. Either way, that is nowhere close to full defense pact which NATO is (with forward allied military bases and such).
        mantas 5y ago
        If you want to find a way to not defend an ally, you'll always find one :) NATO treaty itself does not talk about rapid response forces, joint bases and so on. All of that comes beyond the treaty. What stops key states from retreating back to basic treaty and then finding an excuse when Article 5 comes? E.g. if Russia comes as non-marked „rebels“?
        _Tev 5y ago
        But there was no defense alliance between NATO and Ukraine, right? Maybe NATO has also weak wording in the treaty itself. So ask yourself - why did Ukraine want so badly to be accepted into it? Why is Russia opposing NATO expansion so much?
        mantas 5y ago
        Budapest treaty is pretty damn close to defence alliance in it's wording. Why did Baltic states or Poland wanted into NATO so much? It's one more treaty you can show to media when shit hits the fan. One more treaty your supporters can use debating governments for help. In reality, if Russia attacks a NATO member, it won't be automatic full-on NATO response. It will still be debates. But certain people will be much more uncomfortable saying „no we won't defend NATO allies“. Yet some will still say it. Russia wants it's own NATO, with black jack and hookers. And countries joining the real NATO obviously won't join theirs.
- treis 5y ago
  NATO has no obligation to Ukraine and it'd be a huge defensive liability. And, as we see, Putin would go to war before seeing Ukraine a part of NATO. The chumps here are the Ukrainian leadership and people. NATO made it clear they wouldn't be admitted. Russia made it clear that he'd invade if they tried. Ukraine did it anyway and this is the unfortunate result.
  - mantas 5y ago
    What would you offer? Retract NATO to just US+UK? Baltic states are undefendable, even compared to Ukraine. If Ukraine is down, Poland is as indefendable as Ukraine. Then we are back to Cold War state where Germany is barely defendable.
  - CRConrad 5y ago
    > NATO has no obligation to Ukraine Yes, Sherlock, that was exactly my point: Dodging that responsibility is what makes NATO an arsehole.

by treis 5y ago

CRConrad 5y ago

Which makes NATO not only an arsehole but also a chump for not admitting Ukraine as a member at the latest shortly after Crimea.

_Tev 5y ago
So you are saying NATO should have started nuclear war because of Crimea? Because when you admit state that has part of it's territory occupied into a defense pact, you are effectively declaring war on the occupying state. Imo it's not quite arsehole thing to not start WWIII due to non-alliance country.
- mantas 5y ago
  What is enough to start nuclear war then? Baltic states? Poland? Germany? UK?
  - _Tev 5y ago
    Yes, when you are in defense pact with nuclear powers, you have way better detterence on your side. Why is that so hard to understand? People are also forgetting that you can't just instantly admit Ukraine into NATO and instantly teleport all the alliance armies onto the battlefield. Trying to make it quicker would very likely just hasten the Russian invasion (because the head douche apparently wanted Ukraine all along), so it really boils down to "do you want to start throwing nukes for state that you never made nuke-backed promises to?" It's appalling how many people here are not seeing bigger picture and would love to just try to end humanity just because some nation got dealt _really_ bad cards. Economically Russia is cratering, so the impatience to end it all here (or in 2014) is just irrational. They were already losing technology (e.g. see how their space program is faltering), this will just accelerate Russia's slide into irrelevance. Even their weapons tech is not keeping up, see the latest kerfuffle in Caucasus: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2020_Nagorno-Karabakh_war https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2020_Nagorno-Karabakh_war
    - mantas 5y ago
      Actually, promises were made to Ukraine when it gave up it's share of Soviet nukes.
      - _Tev 5y ago
        Yea, but that was weak at best https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Budapest_Memorandum_on_Security_Assurances#Analysis https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Budapest_Memorandum_on_Securit... Also the wording is fuzzy when it comes to conventional war, but maybe the wiki has wrong wording. Either way, that is nowhere close to full defense pact which NATO is (with forward allied military bases and such).
        mantas 5y ago
        If you want to find a way to not defend an ally, you'll always find one :) NATO treaty itself does not talk about rapid response forces, joint bases and so on. All of that comes beyond the treaty. What stops key states from retreating back to basic treaty and then finding an excuse when Article 5 comes? E.g. if Russia comes as non-marked „rebels“?
        _Tev 5y ago
        But there was no defense alliance between NATO and Ukraine, right? Maybe NATO has also weak wording in the treaty itself. So ask yourself - why did Ukraine want so badly to be accepted into it? Why is Russia opposing NATO expansion so much?
        mantas 5y ago
        Budapest treaty is pretty damn close to defence alliance in it's wording. Why did Baltic states or Poland wanted into NATO so much? It's one more treaty you can show to media when shit hits the fan. One more treaty your supporters can use debating governments for help. In reality, if Russia attacks a NATO member, it won't be automatic full-on NATO response. It will still be debates. But certain people will be much more uncomfortable saying „no we won't defend NATO allies“. Yet some will still say it. Russia wants it's own NATO, with black jack and hookers. And countries joining the real NATO obviously won't join theirs.
treis 5y ago
NATO has no obligation to Ukraine and it'd be a huge defensive liability. And, as we see, Putin would go to war before seeing Ukraine a part of NATO. The chumps here are the Ukrainian leadership and people. NATO made it clear they wouldn't be admitted. Russia made it clear that he'd invade if they tried. Ukraine did it anyway and this is the unfortunate result.
- mantas 5y ago
  What would you offer? Retract NATO to just US+UK? Baltic states are undefendable, even compared to Ukraine. If Ukraine is down, Poland is as indefendable as Ukraine. Then we are back to Cold War state where Germany is barely defendable.
- CRConrad 5y ago
  > NATO has no obligation to Ukraine Yes, Sherlock, that was exactly my point: Dodging that responsibility is what makes NATO an arsehole.