5 ms·

>There is—security of the Eastern flank of NATO—though it doesn’t require a nuclear response. The whole idea of "security of the Eastern flank of NATO" goes ou

>There is—security of the Eastern flank of NATO—though it doesn’t require a nuclear response. The whole idea of "security of the Eastern flank of NATO" goes out the window when NATO engages in direct conflict with Russia. Your response is self-defeating. >The principle is that Russia cannot prosecute an unprovoked war of aggression, in which it commits an appalling array of war crimes and crimes against humanity. That's great for a tweet, but it doesn't actually outline NATO's policy towards Russia. If the goal is NATO security, our continued escalation of the proxy war is self-defeating. Moral indignation should not be the driver of foreign policy. >The idea that other nuclear powers cannot respond militarily to aggressive use of nukes by Russia negates the strategic advantage of having nukes in the first place No, the idea is that a nuclear power inserting itself into an engagement between two parties while expecting the other party not to escalate to nuclear capabilities is undermining the strategic value of nuclear deterrence. The U.S. sitting out an engagement it was not involved in does nothing to undermine nuclear deterrence. >But unless the world is prepared to allow itself to be forced into abject surrender to any aggressor willing to wave around nonconventional weapons This is patently false and extremely dangerous, as I've already argued in a sibling comment.

dragonwriter 4y ago
> The whole idea of “security of the Eastern flank of NATO” goes out the window when NATO engages in direct conflict with Russia. No, actually, the whole reason collective self-defense and regional is a thing is that once someone is attacked, not fighting the aggressor can be worse for your own security than fighting them. THere’s a reason NATO Article 4 exists alongside Article 5 and has led to NATO action more than Article 5 has. > That’s great for a tweet, but it doesn’t actually outline NATO’s policy towards Russia. If the goal is NATO security, our continued escalation of the proxy war is self-defeating. No, the whole reason for NATO qua NATO support for Ukraine is that Russian aggression in the region is a regional security threat. Checking that aggression is by far the most important current security concern of NATO.
- hackinthebochs 4y ago
  >No, the whole reason for NATO qua NATO support for Ukraine is that Russian aggression in the region is a regional security threat. Checking that aggression is by far the most important current security concern of NATO. And what are the limits to this support? At some point, the support for Ukraine creates a greater security threat to NATO than no support. Escalating the proxy war to the point where Russia's only options are to nuke or retreat is a total failure of protecting regional security. Escalating even further to direct warfare with Russia is just to dissolve any idea of NATO security. There is no rational policy here, only policy driven by moral indignation.
  - _kbh_ 4y ago
    > Escalating the proxy war to the point where Russia's only options are to nuke or retreat is a total failure of protecting regional security. So your trying to tell me, letting Ukraine force Russia out of its territories and showing them and the world that they aren’t the military ““super power”” everyone thought is _bad_ for regional security?. What is your solution? To let Russia annex whatever territories it wants?.
    - hackinthebochs 4y ago
      >So your trying to tell me, letting Ukraine force Russia out of its territories and showing them and the world that they aren’t the military ““super power”” everyone thought is _bad_ for regional security?. This is just nonsensical. Offer an argument, and I will be happy to engage with it. >What is your solution? To let Russia annex whatever territories it wants?. In a comment upthread I have specified exactly how we should respond to avoid escalating to a nuclear war while also deterring future aggressive actions. Feel free to engage intelligently with those points.
      - _kbh_ 4y ago
        > In a comment upthread I have specified exactly how we should respond to avoid escalating to a nuclear war while also deterring future aggressive actions. Feel free to engage intelligently with those points. > This is just nonsensical. Offer an argument, and I will be happy to engage with it. Since you didn't link it yourself I can only assume that this is it. > This isn't obviously true. Different regions will be valued differently by Russia in terms of control. It is clear that Ukraine is of supreme importance to Putin in terms of geography and cultural ties. If we raise the cost of victory in Ukraine to the point where that cost is higher than the anticipated benefit of occupying the next state, it is possible to prevent any further expansion. I believe we are well past that point in Ukraine. The assumption that any victory in Ukraine for Putin will inevitably result in further expansive attempts is a convenient narrative but doesn't hold up to scrutiny. It appears your plan is to sacrifice Ukraine to Russia in hopes he doesn't do it again, this is a plan that is bound to fail as the world learnt with Hitler and the Sudetenland. The only thing that will stop Russia having its colonial ambitions is to defeat them in such a thorough and direct way that they never think of doing it again as it would risk destabilising their country. This is what is starting to happen in Ukraine, and what should continue to happen. The only way to stop this is force, appeasement never works.

dragonwriter 4y ago

> The whole idea of “security of the Eastern flank of NATO” goes out the window when NATO engages in direct conflict with Russia. No, actually, the whole reason collective self-defense and regional is a thing is that once someone is attacked, not fighting the aggressor can be worse for your own security than fighting them. THere’s a reason NATO Article 4 exists alongside Article 5 and has led to NATO action more than Article 5 has. > That’s great for a tweet, but it doesn’t actually outline NATO’s policy towards Russia. If the goal is NATO security, our continued escalation of the proxy war is self-defeating. No, the whole reason for NATO qua NATO support for Ukraine is that Russian aggression in the region is a regional security threat. Checking that aggression is by far the most important current security concern of NATO.

hackinthebochs 4y ago
>No, the whole reason for NATO qua NATO support for Ukraine is that Russian aggression in the region is a regional security threat. Checking that aggression is by far the most important current security concern of NATO. And what are the limits to this support? At some point, the support for Ukraine creates a greater security threat to NATO than no support. Escalating the proxy war to the point where Russia's only options are to nuke or retreat is a total failure of protecting regional security. Escalating even further to direct warfare with Russia is just to dissolve any idea of NATO security. There is no rational policy here, only policy driven by moral indignation.
- _kbh_ 4y ago
  > Escalating the proxy war to the point where Russia's only options are to nuke or retreat is a total failure of protecting regional security. So your trying to tell me, letting Ukraine force Russia out of its territories and showing them and the world that they aren’t the military ““super power”” everyone thought is _bad_ for regional security?. What is your solution? To let Russia annex whatever territories it wants?.
  - hackinthebochs 4y ago
    >So your trying to tell me, letting Ukraine force Russia out of its territories and showing them and the world that they aren’t the military ““super power”” everyone thought is _bad_ for regional security?. This is just nonsensical. Offer an argument, and I will be happy to engage with it. >What is your solution? To let Russia annex whatever territories it wants?. In a comment upthread I have specified exactly how we should respond to avoid escalating to a nuclear war while also deterring future aggressive actions. Feel free to engage intelligently with those points.
    - _kbh_ 4y ago
      > In a comment upthread I have specified exactly how we should respond to avoid escalating to a nuclear war while also deterring future aggressive actions. Feel free to engage intelligently with those points. > This is just nonsensical. Offer an argument, and I will be happy to engage with it. Since you didn't link it yourself I can only assume that this is it. > This isn't obviously true. Different regions will be valued differently by Russia in terms of control. It is clear that Ukraine is of supreme importance to Putin in terms of geography and cultural ties. If we raise the cost of victory in Ukraine to the point where that cost is higher than the anticipated benefit of occupying the next state, it is possible to prevent any further expansion. I believe we are well past that point in Ukraine. The assumption that any victory in Ukraine for Putin will inevitably result in further expansive attempts is a convenient narrative but doesn't hold up to scrutiny. It appears your plan is to sacrifice Ukraine to Russia in hopes he doesn't do it again, this is a plan that is bound to fail as the world learnt with Hitler and the Sudetenland. The only thing that will stop Russia having its colonial ambitions is to defeat them in such a thorough and direct way that they never think of doing it again as it would risk destabilising their country. This is what is starting to happen in Ukraine, and what should continue to happen. The only way to stop this is force, appeasement never works.