13 ms·

Ukraine is not a member of NATO, so options are somewhat limited. Russia intends to use Chernobyl as a deterrent to NATO, according to the report (how, I do not

by rmk 5y ago

Ukraine is not a member of NATO, so options are somewhat limited. Russia intends to use Chernobyl as a deterrent to NATO, according to the report (how, I do not know). It is also not straightforward to put a NATO ally right on Russia's vulnerable flank (it's endless plains and flat ground from Ukraine to Moscow, which has always been a source of strategic vulnerability for Moscow), so admitting Ukraine to NATO was never a concrete possibility. In fact, the US has had to tread very carefully simply to place missiles that are capable of carrying nuclear warheads in Poland, which is a neighbor of Ukraine. Russia had a buffer state that was content to do its bidding in Yanukovich et. al. but after the Ukrainians overthrew their corrupt government and made moves to establish a genuine western-style democracy with rule of law, Russia were forced to shore up their vulnerable flank. This is part of that process. But they now face bad consequences, including neutral Finland and Sweden deciding to join NATO, perhaps Georgia also, and Germany (and Europe in general) starting to look for alternate energy sources in earnest (Russia supplies a huge percentage of Europe's energy needs, and is also a huge supplier of many rare earths and raw materials that are critical to the Semiconductor Industry). EDIT: Belarus is also a client state of Russia's, and there has been unrest there, so perhaps Russia is sensing that they might slip as well. Putin is desperate to do whatever it takes to stay in power in Russia, and these things play into that as well.

JumpCrisscross 5y ago
> Ukraine is not a member of NATO, so options are somewhat limited Ukraine not being in NATO means we aren’t obligated to intervene. We regularly intervene in various things without a treaty requiring it.
- ngcc_hk 5y ago
  It is still an independent state and a member for a long term of un. Can one just take one like japan say if it is not part of nato.
  - kasey_junk 5y ago
    If no one has the will to stop it… yes. But Japan is a bad example because the US & Japan maintain mutual defense agreements. If it’s invaded the US will act.
    - bayesian_horse 5y ago
      There is a scenario where North Korea feels an invasion is imminent and uses short and medium range nuclear missiles against US bases, for example in Japan. With the calculation that this would nip any kind of invasion in the bud, and the US military might refrain from nuclear retaliation because North Korea would threaten the east coast with long range nuclear missiles. But that kind of calculation "oh, the US won't have the stomach to fight a useless war if you hit them hard enough first" was exactly what doomed the Japanese Empire.
      - toast0 5y ago
        > because North Korea would threaten the east coast with long range nuclear missiles. I don't think NK has currently credible launch systems to make it to the east coast (of the US)? Also, the past century shows the US had the stomach to fight useless wars, so I'd hope NK has noticed that.
        smegger001 5y ago
        no they cant hit the east coast yet, but they could hit Seattle, Portland, Honolulu, Anchorage, possibly San Francisco. I would rather the west coast not glow in the dark thank you.
        bayesian_horse 5y ago
        I sometimes get the two coasts confused, in this case because the west coast is east of North Korea... In any case, the state and capability of their missile arsenal isn't widely known. The issue here is that it's not so much the will to fight an expensive war but rather to risk nuclear strikes at home just for the benefit of revenge on North Korea.
- mikeyouse 5y ago
  Intervening militarily invites a counter response from Russia and could lead to outright war between NATO and Russia. It's one thing to assist Kuwait, quite another to send troops to fight a nuclear-armed adversary.
  - JumpCrisscross 5y ago
    Totally agree. Just clarifying that the limiting factor on international responses isn’t Ukraine’s NATO nonmembership.
    - alecbz 5y ago
      I think people are implying "obviously we'd like to avoid direct military conflict with Russia if possible", so given that there's nothing strongly compelling us to intervene directly (like Ukraine being in NATO), we're obviously not. (I'm unclear on how true the silent implication is, but seems reasonable).
  - mvc 5y ago
    So we wait until they're doing this in Poland? I think I've seen this one before. Doesn't end well for anyone involved. Better to hit an enemy when they're not expecting it.
    - bcrosby95 5y ago
      NATO drew their line in the sand. Intervene when it's crossed. It's better to not bait and switch a nuclear power into war.
      - mvc 5y ago
        We drew a line in the sand when we persuaded them to get rid of their own nukes, ensuring that we'd have their back. That we don't actually have their back will be noted by despots the world over.
    - karpierz 5y ago
- willis936 5y ago
  Costs money and political capital. What it buys is defense of Ukrainian sovereignty and escalates conflict with a dangerous, poor nuclear superpower. Ukraine is being handed to Putin. He gets to flex his strongman ego and the world gets to not be ended (today).
  - StillBored 5y ago
    Which sounds disturbingly like British/French response to the Rhineland/Austria lead up to WWII.
    - willis936 5y ago
      Indeed. Some things are different today. Nukes, cyber weapons, NATO borders being tougher than the League of Nations, the imperial country having a weak economy, and the whole thing is a war without a cause. Russia invading a NATO country would be akin to walking on a landmine. Putin's not a fool, so it is very unlikely to happen.
      - jotm 5y ago
        Well, he could've led Russia on the same path as China, making it a true world power that other countries massively depend on. Instead the fascist government chose isolationism. So, the foolishness of Putin is quite debatable.
    - dabeledo 5y ago
      Sudetenland
- rmk 5y ago
  Absolutely. But if a NATO member is attacked, then member states are obligated to come to the member's aid. It's essentially tantamount to saying, if you are at war with a NATO member, you are at war with the whole bloc, which includes USA, UK, France (somewhat in/out member over the decades), Germany, Turkey, and so on. It's a formidable group that acts as a deterrent to any would-be aggressor. The US is not obligated to intervene in Ukraine, plain and simple. The US has a strategic partnership with Ukraine, I think, but it's not an ally. https://www.defense.gov/News/Feature-Stories/Story/Article/1684641/alliances-vs-partnerships/ https://www.defense.gov/News/Feature-Stories/Story/Article/1... https://www.state.gov/u-s-ukraine-charter-on-strategic-partnership/ https://www.state.gov/u-s-ukraine-charter-on-strategic-partn...
  - Arubis 5y ago
    > if a NATO member is attacked, then member states are obligated to come to the member's aid. It's essentially tantamount to saying, if you are at war with a NATO member, you are at war with the whole bloc, This is the deterrent—and it also rhymes with the Triple Entente v. Triple Alliance tensions that set off the Great War.
  - _puk 5y ago
    The scary thing is if NATO decide to get involved, and it turns into war between NATO and Russia, then the security of the Baltic States plummets. Currently, as NATO members, they are not likely to be attacked, but if NATO declares war then that deterrent is gone. Hopefully not a likely scenario, but who knows.. There's been a lot of tension lately, especially with the likes of Belarus bussing migrants across the border into Lithuania etc, but no idea where this will end.
    - rmk 5y ago
      NATO is a defensive alliance, so there has to be a provocation for them to act.
      - aszen 5y ago
        Not necessarily see their previous involvement in conflicts. What kind of defence was nato doing in Afghanistan
- avazhi 5y ago
  America will do nothing except 'strongly condemn' what's happening, just like the rest of the world. The simple fact is that there is no real upside to risking actual war with Russia - that the Russians will dominate the Ukraine while walking away with a bloody nose (in the form of minor troop losses of its own) is a foregone conclusion. Without more, that's a localised conflict that Russia rather hilariously can try to claim the moral high ground about (NATO encroachment, historical alliances, American instability and foreign meddling), but if America or indeed any of the other nuclear powers gets involved, the risks increase massively very quickly. If two nuclear powers went at it properly here - I don't care which two - we enter into long-tailed territory and it's something we've simply never seen. There's absolutely no chance America or the UK risk that - they can get their wheat from somewhere else. On the one hand, I feel bad for Ukrainians. On the other hand, the whole world saw it coming, just like we can see China invading Taiwan at some point in the future, and the calculus will be the exact same: Taiwan means more to China than it does to America, and the Ukraine means more to Russia than it does to the West. It is perilous to fight somebody, whether it's Putin or Xi, with vested emotional interests in the subject matter of the fight when all you've got is ideology. And so nothing will come of this except 'strong condemnations'. As if any strongman ever gave a fuck.
  - nine_k 5y ago
    I hope that beside strong condemnations, the US will also help with money (wars are expensive!) and stuff useful at war, from medical supplies to maybe weapons like Stingers and Javelins. I also hope that the US will share intelligence information; US's abilities here are far greater than Ukraine's.
  - pkaye 5y ago
    > America will do nothing except 'strongly condemn' what's happening, just like the rest of the world. People don't want a 'world police' anymore.
    - ethbr0 5y ago
      Then they're going to have to remember what a world without police looks like.
- throwaway888abc 5y ago
  Exactly Iraq, Syria, Afghanistan, Yugoslavia
brabel 5y ago
> ... including neutral Finland and Sweden deciding to join NATO, perhaps Georgia also. Did you hear evidence of that anywhere or is that just wild speculation?
- bandyaboot 5y ago
  Well it’s been reported that Sweden and Finland are going to attend an emergency NATO summit on Friday. So, speculation yes, but “wild” speculation? I don’t think so.
  - brabel 5y ago
    Sweden has participated in several NATO meetings and even trainings over the years, but that's quite different from announcing they will outright join NATO.
    - bandyaboot 5y ago
      Yes, which is why I said it's still speculation.
- rmk 5y ago
  Sorry, I meant that it's a possible consequence. It has not actually occurred.
- pertymcpert 5y ago
  Seems Finland is going to seriously consider it now.
WillPostForFood 5y ago
It is also not straightforward to put a NATO ally right on Russia's vulnerable flank In taking Ukraine, Putin just put Nato on Russia’s border.
- kasey_junk 5y ago
  NATO has been on Russias border for going on 20 years. The Baltic states joined in 2004.
  - agumonkey 5y ago
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enlargement_of_NATO https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enlargement_of_NATO for more details did this affect Russia negatively ? from my seat it was no biggie, and nothing came out of the baltic states joining.. no threats, accident, economic problems in the news.. but maybe i'm just blind
    - jacquesm 5y ago
      From Russias POV it was.
      - agumonkey 5y ago
        I'm trying to assess how much of it is a blow to russian empire desire and paranoia, or if there were some more tangible / material effects. I can understand they really don't want a US driven group nearby for multiple reasons.
        jacquesm 5y ago
        By Western standards it is probably seen as paranoia, by Russian standards it is seen as self defense. They have never really gotten over the implosion of the whole USSR.
        agumonkey 5y ago
nuccy 5y ago
Ukraine signed a Budapest memorandum [1] where US, France, UK and Russia guaranteed its territory integrity in exhange for the 3rd in the world arsenal of nuclear weapons. 1. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Budapest_Memorandum_on_Security_Assurances https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Budapest_Memorandum_on_Secur...
- rmk 5y ago
  Interesting. I suppose a resolute response to the first violation by Russia might have helped.
- adrr 5y ago
  US, France and UK have guaranteed that no country will ever dismantle their nukes for a piece of paper. This will make the world much more dangerous with Iran pursing nukes which will be shortly followed by Saudi Arabia. North Korea will never disarm. Proliferation will continue and technology advancements will make it easier for countries to acquire nukes.
  - pkaye 5y ago
    Russia is who broke this agreement yet you are blaming the others?
    - margalabargala 5y ago
      It takes two things for an agreement like this to become worthless. The first is a violation of the agreement, which is what Russia is doing currently. The second is the lack of enforcement of the agreement against the above violator. If the other signatories enforced the agreement, then it would signal that the agreement is worthwhile, and other countries would be willing to enter into it. Yes, of course Russia is the aggressor here and was the first to break the agreement. But the moment when these agreements become worthless, is when violations are not enforced, not when violations occur.
      - pkaye 5y ago
trhway 5y ago
>In fact, the US has had to tread very carefully simply to place missiles that are capable of carrying nuclear warheads in Poland, which is a neighbor of Ukraine. according to Putin that treading is a major motivation for his current actions.
- rmk 5y ago
  That's correct. You don't put missiles in range of a nuclear superpower's population centers and expect them to ignore it. But I feel that the timing of this is more related to Putin's political situation at home.
  - trhway 5y ago
    >the timing of this is more related to Putin's political situation at home. yes, as i already wrote during the last year, Ukraine got Turkish drones and with them the window of opportunity to win the Donbass war (like Azerbaijan/Turkey did against Armenia/Russia). The fall of Donbass would have been a large failure for Putin which his regime would have hard time to survive. Without bringing aviation though Russian forces couldn't operate successfully there (especially given the tank swallowing deep Spring mud what is going to happen in few weeks), and this is what happened yesterday across Ukraine - attacks on airfields and air-defenses, command and control centers, etc.
    - rmk 5y ago
      Yes, Russia has a finite window in which it can bring in its tanks and heavy artillery, which are its strengths, before the spring thaws mire them in the mud. It's not entirely clear what the endgame is here, though. They can not sustain an occupation, and they will suffer heavy casualties if they do a street-to-street urban war; they will face questions at home if heavy Russian casualties are incurred, which is entirely possible given the US and UK have armed the Ukrainians up the wazoo with antitank missiles; they can not sustain a 'fortress Russia' with $630 Billion in USD reserves indefinitely; and they certainly can not stop the long term turn towards NATO and away from Russian energy exports, which will get a jolt in the arm after this disastrous war.
greedo 5y ago
"In fact, the US has had to tread very carefully simply to place missiles that are capable of carrying nuclear warheads in Poland, which is a neighbor of Ukraine." This is Russian disinformation. Aegis Ashore (which is the system being installed in Poland) is designed to launched SM3 missiles that are designed to intercept ballistic missiles. They aren't nuclear armed at all. The Russians have been claiming that the silos could also launch Tomahawk missiles, some variants of which are nuclear armed. There have been no plans for this to happen, and the US has even offered to allow inspections.
selfhoster11 5y ago
> Russia were forced to shore up their vulnerable flank Russia wasn't forced to do anything. They could've merely quietly dropped two of their delusions: a) NATO was never going to attack them, unless it literally went crazy, or someone framed Russia so badly that a nuclear response was preferable to any other option. The West doesn't want to trigger a MAD scenario, and are keen to keep the post-WW2 peace and (in the case of the US) bomb less defended countries for their natural resources. Any claims or beliefs to the contrary are a projected reflection of their own priorities. b) buffer zones outside of the neighborhood is getting more crowded. Big deal, if you are really so keen on a buffer zone, then maybe sacrifice a few square km out of the ABSOLUTELY MASSIVE part of the continent that they already control. Does that mean risking important areas? Oh noes. Security has a cost, so if you're not willing to pay for it, quit whining.
- toyg 5y ago
  > and (in the case of the US) bomb less defended countries for their natural resources. That's not terribly different from what Russia is doing with Ukraine - they will overwhelm a weaker country for their own strategic reasons, enjoying the impunity granted by a nuclear arsenal (and not just your average one: the largest!).
  - selfhoster11 5y ago
    The power differential is far smaller between Ukraine and Russia, compared to the one between the USA and whatever countries they invaded. I don't think these are equivalent in any practical sense.
- rmk 5y ago
  Being comfortable in your neighborhood is not a delusion, it's a core priority most nation states will be willing to go to war over. If you are American, then you will likely not understand this because America is blessed with wonderful location: it does not have to contend with dozens of possibly unfriendly neighbors bordering it, which is a luxury that Russia, China, and India do not have. They are huge landmasses having long borders with many, many different neighbors who are not all friendly. America has thousands of miles of ocean from its bigger rivals, which all but rules out massive land wars and even air wars. Only a blue-water navy can challenge America, and even then the Americans can take the fight to the littoral states of countries like China if they have beefs with them. Can you imagine that with America? It's the same thing with Russia: Putin has struck a deal with Xi that allows him to move his military assets from the east to this theater, because he feels that it's a strategic imperative to 'clear the neighborhood'. Russia has given up land and trapped foreign invaders, including Napoleon and Hitler, but it has done so at a huge cost in blood and treasure. From Russia's perspective, it's far more cost-effective to have weak client states that do their bidding on their hard-to-defend flanks, than to have strong, democratic, independent states that can ally themselves with their archenemies.
gutitout 5y ago
Can’t wait to see how “obligated” the USA will feel about Taiwan. I don’t believe NATO is the reason they’re not stopping Putin.
jrs235 5y ago
This explains what you mention: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JrMiSQAGOS4 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JrMiSQAGOS4 This guy nailed it 7 years ago!
- rmk 5y ago
  Thank you for posting this every informative talk. What I've written essentially reflects this. The conclusion that Prof. Mearsheimer draws, that Ukraine will be forced to break up by Putin, seems to be the end game here.
pertymcpert 5y ago
The fact that Germany was going to increase their dependence on Russian gas with NS2 instead of lowering it is despicable and incredibly short sighted. Same country which is going nuclear free. Complete morons.
- rmk 5y ago
  Don't worry, until now EU member states were blissfully ignoring or putting their NATO obligations on the back burner. Hence the prodigious dependency on Russian gas. Also, the greens hold considerable sway in large parts of Western Europe and the Nordic countries, so nuclear became a dirty word. I think this debacle will jolt the the EU members' leadership out of its complacency, and there will be a renewed focus on European Security, now that Macron's deal-brokering has clearly failed. Which country is going nuclear free? I hope it's not France, because I thought they are the leaders in nuclear energy.
  - pertymcpert 5y ago
    > Which country is going nuclear free? Germany is intending to, once their current plants are decommissioned.
giantrobot 5y ago
> Russia were forced to shore up their vulnerable flank Your explanation isn't bad but this choice of words is strange. No one "forced" Russia to do anything. NATO has never overtly threatened Russia. Neither NATO or any European country was going to roll tanks through Ukraine and attack Russia. Even if every Eastern European country decided to get back at Russia for a half century of abuse from the USSR, the existence of Russia's nuclear arsenal secured their borders. The Putin propaganda about tanks rolling through Ukraine is simply absurd. It's just some recycled Stalinist propaganda trying to equate NATO/Europe with Hitler and the Nazis. I don't think any description of Putin's actions using the word "forced" or anything like it make actual sense.
Consultant32452 5y ago
>Ukrainians overthrew their corrupt government and made moves to establish a genuine western-style democracy with rule of law It's believed by many that the US ran a coup that installed a US puppet. That alleged puppet ended the long-standing arrangement that granted Russia access to its only warm water port. Losing access to this port made it almost a certainty that Russia would annex Crimea, which it did.
- jotm 5y ago
  It did, and a decade later it launched an all out attack on the whole of Ukraine to "protect" the newly recognized DNR/LNR. A paper thin excuse, something a HOIIV player or a deranged dictator would come up with. With no strong opposition to that, drunk on success, ~~Hitler~~ Putin can go further.

by rmk 5y ago

JumpCrisscross 5y ago

> Ukraine is not a member of NATO, so options are somewhat limited Ukraine not being in NATO means we aren’t obligated to intervene. We regularly intervene in various things without a treaty requiring it.

ngcc_hk 5y ago
It is still an independent state and a member for a long term of un. Can one just take one like japan say if it is not part of nato.
- kasey_junk 5y ago
  If no one has the will to stop it… yes. But Japan is a bad example because the US & Japan maintain mutual defense agreements. If it’s invaded the US will act.
  - bayesian_horse 5y ago
    There is a scenario where North Korea feels an invasion is imminent and uses short and medium range nuclear missiles against US bases, for example in Japan. With the calculation that this would nip any kind of invasion in the bud, and the US military might refrain from nuclear retaliation because North Korea would threaten the east coast with long range nuclear missiles. But that kind of calculation "oh, the US won't have the stomach to fight a useless war if you hit them hard enough first" was exactly what doomed the Japanese Empire.
    - toast0 5y ago
      > because North Korea would threaten the east coast with long range nuclear missiles. I don't think NK has currently credible launch systems to make it to the east coast (of the US)? Also, the past century shows the US had the stomach to fight useless wars, so I'd hope NK has noticed that.
      - smegger001 5y ago
        no they cant hit the east coast yet, but they could hit Seattle, Portland, Honolulu, Anchorage, possibly San Francisco. I would rather the west coast not glow in the dark thank you.
      - bayesian_horse 5y ago
        I sometimes get the two coasts confused, in this case because the west coast is east of North Korea... In any case, the state and capability of their missile arsenal isn't widely known. The issue here is that it's not so much the will to fight an expensive war but rather to risk nuclear strikes at home just for the benefit of revenge on North Korea.
mikeyouse 5y ago
Intervening militarily invites a counter response from Russia and could lead to outright war between NATO and Russia. It's one thing to assist Kuwait, quite another to send troops to fight a nuclear-armed adversary.
- JumpCrisscross 5y ago
  Totally agree. Just clarifying that the limiting factor on international responses isn’t Ukraine’s NATO nonmembership.
  - alecbz 5y ago
    I think people are implying "obviously we'd like to avoid direct military conflict with Russia if possible", so given that there's nothing strongly compelling us to intervene directly (like Ukraine being in NATO), we're obviously not. (I'm unclear on how true the silent implication is, but seems reasonable).
- mvc 5y ago
  So we wait until they're doing this in Poland? I think I've seen this one before. Doesn't end well for anyone involved. Better to hit an enemy when they're not expecting it.
  - bcrosby95 5y ago
    NATO drew their line in the sand. Intervene when it's crossed. It's better to not bait and switch a nuclear power into war.
    - mvc 5y ago
      We drew a line in the sand when we persuaded them to get rid of their own nukes, ensuring that we'd have their back. That we don't actually have their back will be noted by despots the world over.
  - karpierz 5y ago
willis936 5y ago
Costs money and political capital. What it buys is defense of Ukrainian sovereignty and escalates conflict with a dangerous, poor nuclear superpower. Ukraine is being handed to Putin. He gets to flex his strongman ego and the world gets to not be ended (today).
- StillBored 5y ago
  Which sounds disturbingly like British/French response to the Rhineland/Austria lead up to WWII.
  - willis936 5y ago
    Indeed. Some things are different today. Nukes, cyber weapons, NATO borders being tougher than the League of Nations, the imperial country having a weak economy, and the whole thing is a war without a cause. Russia invading a NATO country would be akin to walking on a landmine. Putin's not a fool, so it is very unlikely to happen.
    - jotm 5y ago
      Well, he could've led Russia on the same path as China, making it a true world power that other countries massively depend on. Instead the fascist government chose isolationism. So, the foolishness of Putin is quite debatable.
  - dabeledo 5y ago
    Sudetenland
rmk 5y ago
Absolutely. But if a NATO member is attacked, then member states are obligated to come to the member's aid. It's essentially tantamount to saying, if you are at war with a NATO member, you are at war with the whole bloc, which includes USA, UK, France (somewhat in/out member over the decades), Germany, Turkey, and so on. It's a formidable group that acts as a deterrent to any would-be aggressor. The US is not obligated to intervene in Ukraine, plain and simple. The US has a strategic partnership with Ukraine, I think, but it's not an ally. https://www.defense.gov/News/Feature-Stories/Story/Article/1684641/alliances-vs-partnerships/ https://www.defense.gov/News/Feature-Stories/Story/Article/1... https://www.state.gov/u-s-ukraine-charter-on-strategic-partnership/ https://www.state.gov/u-s-ukraine-charter-on-strategic-partn...
- Arubis 5y ago
  > if a NATO member is attacked, then member states are obligated to come to the member's aid. It's essentially tantamount to saying, if you are at war with a NATO member, you are at war with the whole bloc, This is the deterrent—and it also rhymes with the Triple Entente v. Triple Alliance tensions that set off the Great War.
- _puk 5y ago
  The scary thing is if NATO decide to get involved, and it turns into war between NATO and Russia, then the security of the Baltic States plummets. Currently, as NATO members, they are not likely to be attacked, but if NATO declares war then that deterrent is gone. Hopefully not a likely scenario, but who knows.. There's been a lot of tension lately, especially with the likes of Belarus bussing migrants across the border into Lithuania etc, but no idea where this will end.
  - rmk 5y ago
    NATO is a defensive alliance, so there has to be a provocation for them to act.
    - aszen 5y ago
      Not necessarily see their previous involvement in conflicts. What kind of defence was nato doing in Afghanistan
avazhi 5y ago
America will do nothing except 'strongly condemn' what's happening, just like the rest of the world. The simple fact is that there is no real upside to risking actual war with Russia - that the Russians will dominate the Ukraine while walking away with a bloody nose (in the form of minor troop losses of its own) is a foregone conclusion. Without more, that's a localised conflict that Russia rather hilariously can try to claim the moral high ground about (NATO encroachment, historical alliances, American instability and foreign meddling), but if America or indeed any of the other nuclear powers gets involved, the risks increase massively very quickly. If two nuclear powers went at it properly here - I don't care which two - we enter into long-tailed territory and it's something we've simply never seen. There's absolutely no chance America or the UK risk that - they can get their wheat from somewhere else. On the one hand, I feel bad for Ukrainians. On the other hand, the whole world saw it coming, just like we can see China invading Taiwan at some point in the future, and the calculus will be the exact same: Taiwan means more to China than it does to America, and the Ukraine means more to Russia than it does to the West. It is perilous to fight somebody, whether it's Putin or Xi, with vested emotional interests in the subject matter of the fight when all you've got is ideology. And so nothing will come of this except 'strong condemnations'. As if any strongman ever gave a fuck.
- nine_k 5y ago
  I hope that beside strong condemnations, the US will also help with money (wars are expensive!) and stuff useful at war, from medical supplies to maybe weapons like Stingers and Javelins. I also hope that the US will share intelligence information; US's abilities here are far greater than Ukraine's.
- pkaye 5y ago
  > America will do nothing except 'strongly condemn' what's happening, just like the rest of the world. People don't want a 'world police' anymore.
  - ethbr0 5y ago
    Then they're going to have to remember what a world without police looks like.
throwaway888abc 5y ago
Exactly Iraq, Syria, Afghanistan, Yugoslavia

brabel 5y ago

> ... including neutral Finland and Sweden deciding to join NATO, perhaps Georgia also. Did you hear evidence of that anywhere or is that just wild speculation?

bandyaboot 5y ago
Well it’s been reported that Sweden and Finland are going to attend an emergency NATO summit on Friday. So, speculation yes, but “wild” speculation? I don’t think so.
- brabel 5y ago
  Sweden has participated in several NATO meetings and even trainings over the years, but that's quite different from announcing they will outright join NATO.
  - bandyaboot 5y ago
    Yes, which is why I said it's still speculation.
rmk 5y ago
Sorry, I meant that it's a possible consequence. It has not actually occurred.
pertymcpert 5y ago
Seems Finland is going to seriously consider it now.

WillPostForFood 5y ago

It is also not straightforward to put a NATO ally right on Russia's vulnerable flank In taking Ukraine, Putin just put Nato on Russia’s border.

kasey_junk 5y ago
NATO has been on Russias border for going on 20 years. The Baltic states joined in 2004.
- agumonkey 5y ago
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enlargement_of_NATO https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enlargement_of_NATO for more details did this affect Russia negatively ? from my seat it was no biggie, and nothing came out of the baltic states joining.. no threats, accident, economic problems in the news.. but maybe i'm just blind
  - jacquesm 5y ago
    From Russias POV it was.
    - agumonkey 5y ago
      I'm trying to assess how much of it is a blow to russian empire desire and paranoia, or if there were some more tangible / material effects. I can understand they really don't want a US driven group nearby for multiple reasons.
      - jacquesm 5y ago
        By Western standards it is probably seen as paranoia, by Russian standards it is seen as self defense. They have never really gotten over the implosion of the whole USSR.
        agumonkey 5y ago

nuccy 5y ago

Ukraine signed a Budapest memorandum [1] where US, France, UK and Russia guaranteed its territory integrity in exhange for the 3rd in the world arsenal of nuclear weapons. 1. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Budapest_Memorandum_on_Security_Assurances https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Budapest_Memorandum_on_Secur...

rmk 5y ago
Interesting. I suppose a resolute response to the first violation by Russia might have helped.
adrr 5y ago
US, France and UK have guaranteed that no country will ever dismantle their nukes for a piece of paper. This will make the world much more dangerous with Iran pursing nukes which will be shortly followed by Saudi Arabia. North Korea will never disarm. Proliferation will continue and technology advancements will make it easier for countries to acquire nukes.
- pkaye 5y ago
  Russia is who broke this agreement yet you are blaming the others?
  - margalabargala 5y ago
    It takes two things for an agreement like this to become worthless. The first is a violation of the agreement, which is what Russia is doing currently. The second is the lack of enforcement of the agreement against the above violator. If the other signatories enforced the agreement, then it would signal that the agreement is worthwhile, and other countries would be willing to enter into it. Yes, of course Russia is the aggressor here and was the first to break the agreement. But the moment when these agreements become worthless, is when violations are not enforced, not when violations occur.
    - pkaye 5y ago

trhway 5y ago

>In fact, the US has had to tread very carefully simply to place missiles that are capable of carrying nuclear warheads in Poland, which is a neighbor of Ukraine. according to Putin that treading is a major motivation for his current actions.

rmk 5y ago
That's correct. You don't put missiles in range of a nuclear superpower's population centers and expect them to ignore it. But I feel that the timing of this is more related to Putin's political situation at home.
- trhway 5y ago
  >the timing of this is more related to Putin's political situation at home. yes, as i already wrote during the last year, Ukraine got Turkish drones and with them the window of opportunity to win the Donbass war (like Azerbaijan/Turkey did against Armenia/Russia). The fall of Donbass would have been a large failure for Putin which his regime would have hard time to survive. Without bringing aviation though Russian forces couldn't operate successfully there (especially given the tank swallowing deep Spring mud what is going to happen in few weeks), and this is what happened yesterday across Ukraine - attacks on airfields and air-defenses, command and control centers, etc.
  - rmk 5y ago
    Yes, Russia has a finite window in which it can bring in its tanks and heavy artillery, which are its strengths, before the spring thaws mire them in the mud. It's not entirely clear what the endgame is here, though. They can not sustain an occupation, and they will suffer heavy casualties if they do a street-to-street urban war; they will face questions at home if heavy Russian casualties are incurred, which is entirely possible given the US and UK have armed the Ukrainians up the wazoo with antitank missiles; they can not sustain a 'fortress Russia' with $630 Billion in USD reserves indefinitely; and they certainly can not stop the long term turn towards NATO and away from Russian energy exports, which will get a jolt in the arm after this disastrous war.

greedo 5y ago

"In fact, the US has had to tread very carefully simply to place missiles that are capable of carrying nuclear warheads in Poland, which is a neighbor of Ukraine." This is Russian disinformation. Aegis Ashore (which is the system being installed in Poland) is designed to launched SM3 missiles that are designed to intercept ballistic missiles. They aren't nuclear armed at all. The Russians have been claiming that the silos could also launch Tomahawk missiles, some variants of which are nuclear armed. There have been no plans for this to happen, and the US has even offered to allow inspections.

selfhoster11 5y ago

> Russia were forced to shore up their vulnerable flank Russia wasn't forced to do anything. They could've merely quietly dropped two of their delusions: a) NATO was never going to attack them, unless it literally went crazy, or someone framed Russia so badly that a nuclear response was preferable to any other option. The West doesn't want to trigger a MAD scenario, and are keen to keep the post-WW2 peace and (in the case of the US) bomb less defended countries for their natural resources. Any claims or beliefs to the contrary are a projected reflection of their own priorities. b) buffer zones outside of the neighborhood is getting more crowded. Big deal, if you are really so keen on a buffer zone, then maybe sacrifice a few square km out of the ABSOLUTELY MASSIVE part of the continent that they already control. Does that mean risking important areas? Oh noes. Security has a cost, so if you're not willing to pay for it, quit whining.

toyg 5y ago
> and (in the case of the US) bomb less defended countries for their natural resources. That's not terribly different from what Russia is doing with Ukraine - they will overwhelm a weaker country for their own strategic reasons, enjoying the impunity granted by a nuclear arsenal (and not just your average one: the largest!).
- selfhoster11 5y ago
  The power differential is far smaller between Ukraine and Russia, compared to the one between the USA and whatever countries they invaded. I don't think these are equivalent in any practical sense.
rmk 5y ago
Being comfortable in your neighborhood is not a delusion, it's a core priority most nation states will be willing to go to war over. If you are American, then you will likely not understand this because America is blessed with wonderful location: it does not have to contend with dozens of possibly unfriendly neighbors bordering it, which is a luxury that Russia, China, and India do not have. They are huge landmasses having long borders with many, many different neighbors who are not all friendly. America has thousands of miles of ocean from its bigger rivals, which all but rules out massive land wars and even air wars. Only a blue-water navy can challenge America, and even then the Americans can take the fight to the littoral states of countries like China if they have beefs with them. Can you imagine that with America? It's the same thing with Russia: Putin has struck a deal with Xi that allows him to move his military assets from the east to this theater, because he feels that it's a strategic imperative to 'clear the neighborhood'. Russia has given up land and trapped foreign invaders, including Napoleon and Hitler, but it has done so at a huge cost in blood and treasure. From Russia's perspective, it's far more cost-effective to have weak client states that do their bidding on their hard-to-defend flanks, than to have strong, democratic, independent states that can ally themselves with their archenemies.

gutitout 5y ago

Can’t wait to see how “obligated” the USA will feel about Taiwan. I don’t believe NATO is the reason they’re not stopping Putin.

jrs235 5y ago

This explains what you mention: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JrMiSQAGOS4 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JrMiSQAGOS4 This guy nailed it 7 years ago!

rmk 5y ago
Thank you for posting this every informative talk. What I've written essentially reflects this. The conclusion that Prof. Mearsheimer draws, that Ukraine will be forced to break up by Putin, seems to be the end game here.

pertymcpert 5y ago

The fact that Germany was going to increase their dependence on Russian gas with NS2 instead of lowering it is despicable and incredibly short sighted. Same country which is going nuclear free. Complete morons.

rmk 5y ago
Don't worry, until now EU member states were blissfully ignoring or putting their NATO obligations on the back burner. Hence the prodigious dependency on Russian gas. Also, the greens hold considerable sway in large parts of Western Europe and the Nordic countries, so nuclear became a dirty word. I think this debacle will jolt the the EU members' leadership out of its complacency, and there will be a renewed focus on European Security, now that Macron's deal-brokering has clearly failed. Which country is going nuclear free? I hope it's not France, because I thought they are the leaders in nuclear energy.
- pertymcpert 5y ago
  > Which country is going nuclear free? Germany is intending to, once their current plants are decommissioned.

giantrobot 5y ago

> Russia were forced to shore up their vulnerable flank Your explanation isn't bad but this choice of words is strange. No one "forced" Russia to do anything. NATO has never overtly threatened Russia. Neither NATO or any European country was going to roll tanks through Ukraine and attack Russia. Even if every Eastern European country decided to get back at Russia for a half century of abuse from the USSR, the existence of Russia's nuclear arsenal secured their borders. The Putin propaganda about tanks rolling through Ukraine is simply absurd. It's just some recycled Stalinist propaganda trying to equate NATO/Europe with Hitler and the Nazis. I don't think any description of Putin's actions using the word "forced" or anything like it make actual sense.

Consultant32452 5y ago

>Ukrainians overthrew their corrupt government and made moves to establish a genuine western-style democracy with rule of law It's believed by many that the US ran a coup that installed a US puppet. That alleged puppet ended the long-standing arrangement that granted Russia access to its only warm water port. Losing access to this port made it almost a certainty that Russia would annex Crimea, which it did.

jotm 5y ago
It did, and a decade later it launched an all out attack on the whole of Ukraine to "protect" the newly recognized DNR/LNR. A paper thin excuse, something a HOIIV player or a deranged dictator would come up with. With no strong opposition to that, drunk on success, ~~Hitler~~ Putin can go further.