4 ms·

The point of not giving enough weapons to Ukraine to settle this quickly is much more nuanced than just "don't anger Putin": - After previous proxy wars that s

by WJW 4y ago

The point of not giving enough weapons to Ukraine to settle this quickly is much more nuanced than just "don't anger Putin": - After previous proxy wars that saw a country flooded with western weapons it was not unheard of for a new regime to turn around and sooner or later use all the weapons they got against western forces in turn (see Afghanistan for the most famous example). Governments do slowly learn the lessons of the past and are hesitant to give out too many weapons. - Mobilization in Russia has seen hundreds of thousands flee the country and tens of thousands of young men have been killed or wounded. Even after the war ends and sanctions are eventually lifted, the demographic imbalances that Russia will face in the coming future will keep crippling its economy and army for decades. NATO doesn't care all that much about who rules the Donbas, but they do care about reducing the threat of Russia to its member states. Prolonging the war for another few years will see tens of thousands more mobilized Russians being fed into the meat grinder, making the future demographic problems that much worse. - The Russian state falling apart and former provinces selling their nukes to the highest bidder would be a Bad Thing (tm), so we want to supply the Ukrainians with enough weapons so that they don't lose (and maybe win back the conquered territories) but not with enough weapons that they could conceivably make a big enough counter attack into Russia that it would fracture.

bgorman 4y ago
If Ukraine somehow takes any Russian territory (defined as post 2014)… it is almost guaranteed nuclear weapons would be used to stop the Ukrainian advance
- _kbh_ 4y ago
  > If Ukraine somehow takes any Russian territory (defined as post 2014)… it is almost guaranteed nuclear weapons would be used to stop the Ukrainian advance Nuclear weapons haven't even been used when Ukraine has hit Russias actual territory (in Russia) so why would they use nuclear weapons against Ukraine retaking its own territory?.
- thechao 4y ago
  I'm not so sure. The whole point of an exercise like this is to demonstrate power, or to acquire resources. Neither tactical nor strategic nuclear weapons would help with those objectives. Ukraine's army isn't isolated to a single spot — tactical nukes wouldn't even be as effective as WW2-era area bombing, and a whole lot more expensive. Strategic weapons would deny resource acquisition to RU. The use of nuclear weapons (of either kind) against civilian centers would be problematic, I think? The US "got away" with its use of nuclear weapons (first use; the US was the only major player left; etc.)
- jcranmer 4y ago
  I don't think Putin would attempt to use nuclear weapons to preserve Russian control over the Donbass. Crimea is less clear (after all, Sevastopol is the main Russian Black Sea naval base), but his sham annexation of the four oblasts makes it less likely in my eyes. It's hard to see a case where the use of nuclear weapons would improve Russia's situation, especially where Ukraine is seeking to recover territory almost everyone other than Russia agrees is rightfully Ukrainian. The story changes a little more if Ukraine were striking at the heart of Russia, but that is not a realistic option.
- dragonwriter 4y ago
  > If Ukraine somehow takes any Russian territory (defined as post 2014)… You mean, pre-2014? They’ve already taken post-2014 “Russian” territory.
  - bgorman 4y ago
    In 2014 Russia annexed Crimea, and parts of the Donbas became controlled by "separatists". Ukraine is currently not close to retaking Crimea.
    - dragonwriter 4y ago
      Russia has “annexed” additional territory post-2014, some of which was subsequently taken by Ukraine (and some of which was already controlled by Ukraine when it was “annexed”.) https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_annexation_of_Donetsk,_Kherson,_Luhansk_and_Zaporizhzhia_oblasts https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_annexation_of_Donets...
H8crilA 4y ago
RE1) Abrams and Leopards would become inoperable within a year or two without spares, much faster if you actually use them in combat (did you know the Abrams runs on a jet engine?) RE2) fair point, immoral but realpolitik, can't disagree RE3) I'm talking about something in the order of what Zaluzhnyi recently asked in The Economist, a few battalions. This is definitely not enough to "conquer Russia", even a small part of it. The nazis used something in the order of a thousand battalions and still failed. Not to mention that I really don't see any political will in Ukraine to do that. Plus defensive nukes, Russian nukes are very very serious.
senectus1 4y ago
I suspect the point is to let Putin drain his resources into Ukraine. If he's draining it there he's not messing with precious 1st world real estate. Russia will end up weaker and Ukraine will end up a bombed out shell of a country with rusting hulks from every other 1st world country scattering the countryside.
- ChuckNorris89 4y ago
  >I suspect the point is to let Putin drain his resources into Ukraine. Ukraine isn't a black hole. Russia draining resources in Ukriane comes at the cost of Ukraine's own resources, in money and human lives, both economical, civilian and military. The longer the war goes on, the more lives Ukraine loses, the more refugees (usually young skilled people) leave the country and the less chance they will return later to rebuild the country. It's terrible for Ukraine to prolong the war.
  - senectus1 4y ago
    i completely agree. the problem I'm saying is that the 1st world countries out there appear to be treating ukraine like a loss leader. help them defend themselves. but that's it. No real action against Russia.. hell not really any sideway action against russia.
smcl 4y ago
So NATO is deliberately prolonging the war at the expense of Ukraine to fulfil some masterplan involving a time-delayed demographic-based attack on Russia to weaken it? Nah, I don't buy it. Assuming it was possible through increased arms sales/lend-leases/donations to tip the balance (it's not) - wouldn't a quick, comprehensive defeat followed by the accession of Ukraine to NATO and the EU be more of a destabilising black-eye for Russia than a slow-burn demographic time-bomb? Given that they've now seen first-hand the difference between being a NATO member and not, why would Ukraine then go on to burn the possibility of joining by then countering with an invasion of Russia? If it was possible to end this quickly in Ukraine's favour without starting WW3 then NATO countries would have done so. At the very least so the the EU could go back to buying gas and oil from Russia.
- WJW 4y ago
  It's more of an attack of opportunity rather than a preconceived masterplan I think. In chess terms: the Russians blundered and NATO is taking advantage of it. A similar thing happened with the Sweden and Finland situation: NATO would prefer them to be a part of the alliance but had acquiesced to them remaining neutral. However when the war started and they decided they would actually prefer to join NATO now, the current members (except Turkiye, but even they didn't oppose it on military grounds) were more than happy to fast-track their joining procedures. Never waste a good crisis, as the saying goes. I do think NATO could have done more if they really wanted to end the war quicker. As the original comment mentioned, the western countries have pretty large stockpiles of armored vehicles that could be sent over. There are also plenty of systems like ATACMS and cluster munitions that the USA has but has decided not to supply to Ukraine. The fact that NATO has so far declined to supply these weapons even though they could indeed be used to end the conflict sooner indicates to me that they are not interested in ending the conflict as soon as possible.
  - smcl 4y ago
    Well NATO members like Poland, Slovakia and Czech Republic have been supplying armoured vehicles, and importantly they’ve been of the similar type that the Ukrainian army already trained to use and maintain. It’s been stated elsewhere in this thread that you can’t just do s/T72/M1 Abrams/ on an army. I agree that we can do more, but I don’t think we can do enough to turn the tides overnight without trucking in brigades of NATO forces and starting WW3.
dragonwriter 4y ago
> The Russian state falling apart and former provinces selling their nukes to the highest bidder would be a Bad Thing (tm), so we want to supply the Ukrainians with enough weapons so that they don't lose (and maybe win back the conquered territories) but not with enough weapons that they could conceivably make a big enough counter attack into Russia that it would fracture. Yeah, because a federal state headquartered in Moscow would never fracture from the cost of a long slow war, only a quick clear defeat. (Please, please don't look at the last time a federal state headquartered in Moscow fractured and the war that set the stage for it.)

by WJW 4y ago

bgorman 4y ago

If Ukraine somehow takes any Russian territory (defined as post 2014)… it is almost guaranteed nuclear weapons would be used to stop the Ukrainian advance

_kbh_ 4y ago
> If Ukraine somehow takes any Russian territory (defined as post 2014)… it is almost guaranteed nuclear weapons would be used to stop the Ukrainian advance Nuclear weapons haven't even been used when Ukraine has hit Russias actual territory (in Russia) so why would they use nuclear weapons against Ukraine retaking its own territory?.
thechao 4y ago
I'm not so sure. The whole point of an exercise like this is to demonstrate power, or to acquire resources. Neither tactical nor strategic nuclear weapons would help with those objectives. Ukraine's army isn't isolated to a single spot — tactical nukes wouldn't even be as effective as WW2-era area bombing, and a whole lot more expensive. Strategic weapons would deny resource acquisition to RU. The use of nuclear weapons (of either kind) against civilian centers would be problematic, I think? The US "got away" with its use of nuclear weapons (first use; the US was the only major player left; etc.)
jcranmer 4y ago
I don't think Putin would attempt to use nuclear weapons to preserve Russian control over the Donbass. Crimea is less clear (after all, Sevastopol is the main Russian Black Sea naval base), but his sham annexation of the four oblasts makes it less likely in my eyes. It's hard to see a case where the use of nuclear weapons would improve Russia's situation, especially where Ukraine is seeking to recover territory almost everyone other than Russia agrees is rightfully Ukrainian. The story changes a little more if Ukraine were striking at the heart of Russia, but that is not a realistic option.
dragonwriter 4y ago
> If Ukraine somehow takes any Russian territory (defined as post 2014)… You mean, pre-2014? They’ve already taken post-2014 “Russian” territory.
- bgorman 4y ago
  In 2014 Russia annexed Crimea, and parts of the Donbas became controlled by "separatists". Ukraine is currently not close to retaking Crimea.
  - dragonwriter 4y ago
    Russia has “annexed” additional territory post-2014, some of which was subsequently taken by Ukraine (and some of which was already controlled by Ukraine when it was “annexed”.) https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_annexation_of_Donetsk,_Kherson,_Luhansk_and_Zaporizhzhia_oblasts https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_annexation_of_Donets...

H8crilA 4y ago

RE1) Abrams and Leopards would become inoperable within a year or two without spares, much faster if you actually use them in combat (did you know the Abrams runs on a jet engine?) RE2) fair point, immoral but realpolitik, can't disagree RE3) I'm talking about something in the order of what Zaluzhnyi recently asked in The Economist, a few battalions. This is definitely not enough to "conquer Russia", even a small part of it. The nazis used something in the order of a thousand battalions and still failed. Not to mention that I really don't see any political will in Ukraine to do that. Plus defensive nukes, Russian nukes are very very serious.

senectus1 4y ago

I suspect the point is to let Putin drain his resources into Ukraine. If he's draining it there he's not messing with precious 1st world real estate. Russia will end up weaker and Ukraine will end up a bombed out shell of a country with rusting hulks from every other 1st world country scattering the countryside.

ChuckNorris89 4y ago
>I suspect the point is to let Putin drain his resources into Ukraine. Ukraine isn't a black hole. Russia draining resources in Ukriane comes at the cost of Ukraine's own resources, in money and human lives, both economical, civilian and military. The longer the war goes on, the more lives Ukraine loses, the more refugees (usually young skilled people) leave the country and the less chance they will return later to rebuild the country. It's terrible for Ukraine to prolong the war.
- senectus1 4y ago
  i completely agree. the problem I'm saying is that the 1st world countries out there appear to be treating ukraine like a loss leader. help them defend themselves. but that's it. No real action against Russia.. hell not really any sideway action against russia.

smcl 4y ago

So NATO is deliberately prolonging the war at the expense of Ukraine to fulfil some masterplan involving a time-delayed demographic-based attack on Russia to weaken it? Nah, I don't buy it. Assuming it was possible through increased arms sales/lend-leases/donations to tip the balance (it's not) - wouldn't a quick, comprehensive defeat followed by the accession of Ukraine to NATO and the EU be more of a destabilising black-eye for Russia than a slow-burn demographic time-bomb? Given that they've now seen first-hand the difference between being a NATO member and not, why would Ukraine then go on to burn the possibility of joining by then countering with an invasion of Russia? If it was possible to end this quickly in Ukraine's favour without starting WW3 then NATO countries would have done so. At the very least so the the EU could go back to buying gas and oil from Russia.

WJW 4y ago
It's more of an attack of opportunity rather than a preconceived masterplan I think. In chess terms: the Russians blundered and NATO is taking advantage of it. A similar thing happened with the Sweden and Finland situation: NATO would prefer them to be a part of the alliance but had acquiesced to them remaining neutral. However when the war started and they decided they would actually prefer to join NATO now, the current members (except Turkiye, but even they didn't oppose it on military grounds) were more than happy to fast-track their joining procedures. Never waste a good crisis, as the saying goes. I do think NATO could have done more if they really wanted to end the war quicker. As the original comment mentioned, the western countries have pretty large stockpiles of armored vehicles that could be sent over. There are also plenty of systems like ATACMS and cluster munitions that the USA has but has decided not to supply to Ukraine. The fact that NATO has so far declined to supply these weapons even though they could indeed be used to end the conflict sooner indicates to me that they are not interested in ending the conflict as soon as possible.
- smcl 4y ago
  Well NATO members like Poland, Slovakia and Czech Republic have been supplying armoured vehicles, and importantly they’ve been of the similar type that the Ukrainian army already trained to use and maintain. It’s been stated elsewhere in this thread that you can’t just do s/T72/M1 Abrams/ on an army. I agree that we can do more, but I don’t think we can do enough to turn the tides overnight without trucking in brigades of NATO forces and starting WW3.

dragonwriter 4y ago

> The Russian state falling apart and former provinces selling their nukes to the highest bidder would be a Bad Thing (tm), so we want to supply the Ukrainians with enough weapons so that they don't lose (and maybe win back the conquered territories) but not with enough weapons that they could conceivably make a big enough counter attack into Russia that it would fracture. Yeah, because a federal state headquartered in Moscow would never fracture from the cost of a long slow war, only a quick clear defeat. (Please, please don't look at the last time a federal state headquartered in Moscow fractured and the war that set the stage for it.)