5 ms·

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

by _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.
      - SahAssar 5y ago
        The agreement literally says "respect the independence and sovereignty and the existing borders of Ukraine" on page 3. What is fuzzy about the wording?

by _Tev 5y ago

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.
    - SahAssar 5y ago
      The agreement literally says "respect the independence and sovereignty and the existing borders of Ukraine" on page 3. What is fuzzy about the wording?