3 ms·

Russia gave 'final warnings' about invading Ukraine which at the time was considered unthinkable by many because the presumed damage the international community

Russia gave 'final warnings' about invading Ukraine which at the time was considered unthinkable by many because the presumed damage the international community could inflict on Russia would be so great that Russia would have to capitulate. So much so the west felt free to ignore Russia warnings and invite Ukraine into NATO. Now I guess Russia winning that war is the new 'unthinkable' underpinning the rational for Ukraine not accepting proposed peace deals. Honestly, I don't see how Ukraine wins that war so I'm again at odds which is what is considered 'unthinkable'. Far from being panicked I'm not even worried about a nuclear war - we're far more likely to have a drone war from which the economic damage would be so great the US will not be able to afford to maintain global dominance. The US felt free to give up it's low value manufacturing base and focus on high value manufacturing and financialization so it's rather unfortunate that cheap drones and a large low value manufacturing base will be what wins future conflicts. Look at how much economic damage the Houthis are doing to Israel - we were told Operation Prosperity Guardian would work as the international community would get together and secure shipping. And if the shield didn't work we'd bomb Yemen into submission, like no-one has tried that one before. Clearly neither has worked and Houthi blackmailing is being very effective. Now imagine a world full of state sponsored terrorists doing their own drone blackmailing with conflicting and impossible to meet demands. So much infrastructure which underpins our current standard of living is at risk. It was clear to me >20 years ago that it made no sense shooting down $10K drones with $1M missiles, I wanted to work on drone counter measures but even back then military development is highly politicized, corrupt, and slow that I saw no viable path for such development.

racional 2y ago
So much so the west felt free to ignore Russia warnings and invite Ukraine into NATO. Except they did not, in fact, issue an invitation for Ukraine to join NATO.
- cjbgkagh 2y ago
  Fair enough, not an official final invitation but an official invitation to increase ties with the intent of there being an official MAP at a later date. In my view that is a distinction without a meaningful difference. Perhaps you're thinking had there been an official invitation and Ukraine quickly accepted then there wouldn't be a Russia-Ukraine war as they would be covered under article 5. I think it's an open question if the US would declare war on Russia in such an instance. I think the reluctance to allow a quick ascension in the first place is born out of the same reluctance to enter such a war. The US is only as bound by treaties as it wants to be. The US could of course meet the letter of article 5 but not the spirit by providing a token response instead of the total war response people are expecting.
  - racional 2y ago
    In my view that is a distinction without a meaningful difference. Completely disagree -- the decision to heed Russia's request and not issue the MAPs to George and Ukraine in 2008 (where the matter has stayed ever since) was an important de-escalatory step and hugely significant. As Putin's sockpuppet Medvedev said at the time: "Reason has prevailed". The rest of the stuff about what might have happened had they been issued and accepted gets into the realm of hypotheticals, which is not my turf.

racional 2y ago

So much so the west felt free to ignore Russia warnings and invite Ukraine into NATO. Except they did not, in fact, issue an invitation for Ukraine to join NATO.

cjbgkagh 2y ago
Fair enough, not an official final invitation but an official invitation to increase ties with the intent of there being an official MAP at a later date. In my view that is a distinction without a meaningful difference. Perhaps you're thinking had there been an official invitation and Ukraine quickly accepted then there wouldn't be a Russia-Ukraine war as they would be covered under article 5. I think it's an open question if the US would declare war on Russia in such an instance. I think the reluctance to allow a quick ascension in the first place is born out of the same reluctance to enter such a war. The US is only as bound by treaties as it wants to be. The US could of course meet the letter of article 5 but not the spirit by providing a token response instead of the total war response people are expecting.
- racional 2y ago
  In my view that is a distinction without a meaningful difference. Completely disagree -- the decision to heed Russia's request and not issue the MAPs to George and Ukraine in 2008 (where the matter has stayed ever since) was an important de-escalatory step and hugely significant. As Putin's sockpuppet Medvedev said at the time: "Reason has prevailed". The rest of the stuff about what might have happened had they been issued and accepted gets into the realm of hypotheticals, which is not my turf.