6 ms·

>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

>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.
    - hackinthebochs 4y ago
      >It appears your plan is to sacrifice Ukraine to Russia in hopes he doesn't do it again This does not represent engaging intelligently with my argument. Let's cut the crap. Is it your opinion that we should ensure Russia loses in Ukraine, up to and including a direct nuclear exchange?
      - _kbh_ 4y ago
        > This does not represent engaging intelligently with my argument. Is it your plan or not?. > Let's cut the crap. Is it your opinion that we should ensure Russia loses in Ukraine, up to and including a direct nuclear exchange? No one is suggesting this because it doesn’t need to happen and is very unlikely to escalate to this. Even if Russia uses a tactical nuke in Ukraine I don’t think the response from NATO would be nuclear because it doesn’t need to be. NATO is more then capable of pushing Russia out of Ukraine in a short period of time with conventional weapons given the state of the Russian armed forces.
        hackinthebochs 4y ago
        >Is it your plan or not? No, your disingenuous characterization does not accurately describe my offered policy. >No one is suggesting this because it doesn’t need to happen and is very unlikely to escalate to this. So your policy is to leave the ball in Russia's court whether we end up in a nuclear exchange, based on the belief that Russia will ultimately back down? And you think this is a wise policy? >NATO is more then capable of pushing Russia out of Ukraine in a short period of time with conventional weapons given the state of the Russian armed forces. How can you be sure Russia will not respond with nuclear weapons to a direct kinetic response from NATO? Or a continuing and escalating response designed to push Russia out of Ukraine?
        _kbh_ 4y ago
        > No, your disingenuous characterization does not accurately describe my offered policy. Then what is your policy? Your policy says to make it expensive for Russia to annex further territory. But Russia has already annexed territory in Ukraine, what happens to that?. Can you directly tell me what you want to happen in Ukraine?, does Ukraine get to keep all its borders?. > So your policy is to leave the ball in Russia's court whether we end up in a nuclear exchange, based on the belief that Russia will ultimately back down? And you think this is a wise policy? It’s better then appeasement which is your policy. We cannot let Russia do what it wants or it will continue to annex territory from countries. For evidence of this just see. - Moldova - Georgia - Chechnya - Ukraine (2014) > How can you be sure Russia will not respond with nuclear weapons to a direct kinetic response from NATO? Or a continuing and escalating response designed to push Russia out of Ukraine? How can you be sure that Russia will?. Hell at this rate there’s a decent chance that Russias tactical nuke just wouldn’t work, which would be hilarious but also not a point I’d like to get.
hbrn 4y ago
> At some point, the support for Ukraine creates a greater security threat to NATO than no support Again, this is based on assumption that Russia will stop after Ukraine. Given their rhetoric and actions in the last two decades, I see no reasons to believe that. They've been consistently instilling hatred towards the West in their citizens. Not towards Ukraine. Read the recent Putin's annexation speech, Ukraine was barely mentioned. It was mostly about USA, colonization, collective West, anglo-saxons, cancel culture, double standards, gay-propaganda, satanism (!). Do you really believe this will all go away once Russia is done with Ukraine?
- hackinthebochs 4y ago
  >Again, this is based on assumption that Russia will stop after Ukraine. Just stop repeating this same nonsense. Either engage with the argument I posted up thread, or don't respond.
  - attentive 4y ago
    ruzzia propagandist is getting angry - perhaps you should go likeminded Z-forums
  - hbrn 4y ago
    You keep condescendingly demanding to engage with your argument, but you haven't made one yet. "Raising the cost of victory" is extremely vague and ambiguous. Since you're being vague and condescending at the same time, I suspect you're not arguing in good faith. If you truly want people to engage with your argument, be specific.
dragonwriter 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. Well, yes, anything where Russia perceives that using a nuke would be a viable option is a failure of regional–at least–security, which is why there has been substantial effort to make it very clear that that option is not viable for them, both through messaging, deployment of forces, etc. Of course, should Russia use a nuke and that become a fait accompli, the same remains true going forward, which, to the point upthread, is why there must in that case be a substantial (though not necessarily nuclear, in response to a tactical nuke) response from NATO. But, before that line is crossed, communicating that that is the case is also important to avoid getting there. Beyond that, Russia reaching the point that there only viable option is to retreat and abandon their aggression is not only a success scenario, it is the only success scenario. Everything else is some degree of failure. (Going forward, of course: retrospectively, allowing Russia to think that aggression was a viable path forward in the first place was itself a failure, but that’s the past and irreversible at this point.)
- hackinthebochs 4y ago
  >Well, yes, anything where Russia perceives that using a nuke would be a viable option is a failure of regional–at least–security, which is why there has been substantial effort to make it very clear that that option is not viable for them, both through messaging, deployment of forces, etc. Yes, that is the intent. The problem is one of ensuring the message results in our desired belief-state in Putin. In reality, all we can do is be clear regarding our responses to various scenarios, and Putin will decide how he evaluates the cost of the west's responses. Putin may not evaluate the cost landscape in the manner we hope. Thus our actions may only precipitate further escalations from both sides. >is why there must in that case be a substantial (though not necessarily nuclear, in response to a tactical nuke) response from NATO. Why think this action itself does not start us on the road that inevitably leads to a nuclear exchange? >Beyond that, Russia reaching the point that there only viable option is to retreat and abandon their aggression is not only a success scenario, it is the only success scenario. Everything else is some degree of failure. This just goes to the point I made upthread, whether the U.S. can come to accept a world order not entirely driven by U.S. interests without fighting a world war over it. The era of universal success for the U.S. on the world stage is over.

_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.
  - hackinthebochs 4y ago
    >It appears your plan is to sacrifice Ukraine to Russia in hopes he doesn't do it again This does not represent engaging intelligently with my argument. Let's cut the crap. Is it your opinion that we should ensure Russia loses in Ukraine, up to and including a direct nuclear exchange?
    - _kbh_ 4y ago
      > This does not represent engaging intelligently with my argument. Is it your plan or not?. > Let's cut the crap. Is it your opinion that we should ensure Russia loses in Ukraine, up to and including a direct nuclear exchange? No one is suggesting this because it doesn’t need to happen and is very unlikely to escalate to this. Even if Russia uses a tactical nuke in Ukraine I don’t think the response from NATO would be nuclear because it doesn’t need to be. NATO is more then capable of pushing Russia out of Ukraine in a short period of time with conventional weapons given the state of the Russian armed forces.
      - hackinthebochs 4y ago
        >Is it your plan or not? No, your disingenuous characterization does not accurately describe my offered policy. >No one is suggesting this because it doesn’t need to happen and is very unlikely to escalate to this. So your policy is to leave the ball in Russia's court whether we end up in a nuclear exchange, based on the belief that Russia will ultimately back down? And you think this is a wise policy? >NATO is more then capable of pushing Russia out of Ukraine in a short period of time with conventional weapons given the state of the Russian armed forces. How can you be sure Russia will not respond with nuclear weapons to a direct kinetic response from NATO? Or a continuing and escalating response designed to push Russia out of Ukraine?
        _kbh_ 4y ago
        > No, your disingenuous characterization does not accurately describe my offered policy. Then what is your policy? Your policy says to make it expensive for Russia to annex further territory. But Russia has already annexed territory in Ukraine, what happens to that?. Can you directly tell me what you want to happen in Ukraine?, does Ukraine get to keep all its borders?. > So your policy is to leave the ball in Russia's court whether we end up in a nuclear exchange, based on the belief that Russia will ultimately back down? And you think this is a wise policy? It’s better then appeasement which is your policy. We cannot let Russia do what it wants or it will continue to annex territory from countries. For evidence of this just see. - Moldova - Georgia - Chechnya - Ukraine (2014) > How can you be sure Russia will not respond with nuclear weapons to a direct kinetic response from NATO? Or a continuing and escalating response designed to push Russia out of Ukraine? How can you be sure that Russia will?. Hell at this rate there’s a decent chance that Russias tactical nuke just wouldn’t work, which would be hilarious but also not a point I’d like to get.

hbrn 4y ago

> At some point, the support for Ukraine creates a greater security threat to NATO than no support Again, this is based on assumption that Russia will stop after Ukraine. Given their rhetoric and actions in the last two decades, I see no reasons to believe that. They've been consistently instilling hatred towards the West in their citizens. Not towards Ukraine. Read the recent Putin's annexation speech, Ukraine was barely mentioned. It was mostly about USA, colonization, collective West, anglo-saxons, cancel culture, double standards, gay-propaganda, satanism (!). Do you really believe this will all go away once Russia is done with Ukraine?

hackinthebochs 4y ago
>Again, this is based on assumption that Russia will stop after Ukraine. Just stop repeating this same nonsense. Either engage with the argument I posted up thread, or don't respond.
- attentive 4y ago
  ruzzia propagandist is getting angry - perhaps you should go likeminded Z-forums
- hbrn 4y ago
  You keep condescendingly demanding to engage with your argument, but you haven't made one yet. "Raising the cost of victory" is extremely vague and ambiguous. Since you're being vague and condescending at the same time, I suspect you're not arguing in good faith. If you truly want people to engage with your argument, be specific.

dragonwriter 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. Well, yes, anything where Russia perceives that using a nuke would be a viable option is a failure of regional–at least–security, which is why there has been substantial effort to make it very clear that that option is not viable for them, both through messaging, deployment of forces, etc. Of course, should Russia use a nuke and that become a fait accompli, the same remains true going forward, which, to the point upthread, is why there must in that case be a substantial (though not necessarily nuclear, in response to a tactical nuke) response from NATO. But, before that line is crossed, communicating that that is the case is also important to avoid getting there. Beyond that, Russia reaching the point that there only viable option is to retreat and abandon their aggression is not only a success scenario, it is the only success scenario. Everything else is some degree of failure. (Going forward, of course: retrospectively, allowing Russia to think that aggression was a viable path forward in the first place was itself a failure, but that’s the past and irreversible at this point.)

hackinthebochs 4y ago
>Well, yes, anything where Russia perceives that using a nuke would be a viable option is a failure of regional–at least–security, which is why there has been substantial effort to make it very clear that that option is not viable for them, both through messaging, deployment of forces, etc. Yes, that is the intent. The problem is one of ensuring the message results in our desired belief-state in Putin. In reality, all we can do is be clear regarding our responses to various scenarios, and Putin will decide how he evaluates the cost of the west's responses. Putin may not evaluate the cost landscape in the manner we hope. Thus our actions may only precipitate further escalations from both sides. >is why there must in that case be a substantial (though not necessarily nuclear, in response to a tactical nuke) response from NATO. Why think this action itself does not start us on the road that inevitably leads to a nuclear exchange? >Beyond that, Russia reaching the point that there only viable option is to retreat and abandon their aggression is not only a success scenario, it is the only success scenario. Everything else is some degree of failure. This just goes to the point I made upthread, whether the U.S. can come to accept a world order not entirely driven by U.S. interests without fighting a world war over it. The era of universal success for the U.S. on the world stage is over.