Arming the Ukrainians

[Spud]

Here's some help, seeing as you're unable to tell the difference.🤡

From a military perspective, there is no difference. Russia is a defensive alliance just as much as NATO is.

[ad_orientem]

From a military perspective, there is no difference. Russia is a defensive alliance just as much as NATO is.

LOL,LOL,LOL,LOL,LOL,LOL,LOL,LOL,LOL,LOL!

[Aruntraveller]

From a military perspective, there is no difference. Russia is a defensive alliance just as much as NATO is.

No. I'm pretty sure that invading another country is offensive, not defensive. So, from a military perspective, there is a world of difference.

I'm always glad to help with the comprehension of basic concepts.

[Outrider]

A defence treaty containing two nuclear states who attacked and decimated Iraq and Afghanistan.

Three. UK, USA, France.

It does look that way, doesn't it. Except that the territory it has gained is the result of NATO expansion.

NATO has no territory. NATO is not a state, it's an alliance. It has no government, not citizenry, it doesn't levy taxes, it owns no military equipment, it has not soldiers.

From the military point of view, why is NATO allowed to fear Russian expansion (or aggression) and Russia is not allowed to fear NATO expansion (or aggression)?

Because NATO has a history of welcoming states who volunteer to join, whilst Russia has a history of invading countries that don't want it. You know, the difference between aggressive territorial expansion and diplomatic alliances.

I didn't mean a defence pact between Russia and Ukraine. I meant between Ukraine and Europe without the US. In terms of conventional military strength, this would be a better balance.

Why would a defensive alliance want to balance itself against an aggressive, imperialist neighbour with a history of invasions instead of presenting an overwhelmingly superior military alliance?

There could be a clause that says that if Russia uses nuclear weapons against Ukraine, the US would defend Ukraine.

There could be a clause that says if Russia uses any weapons against Ukraine the entirety of the Western hemisphere would retaliate. We could base it around the North Atlantic, and have a treaty about it...

The thing here is that the Russian nuclear capability was always a response to the US developing and using it's nuclear weapons.

The Soviet nuclear programme was about developing a superior weapon - it was part of an arms race, it wasn't solely a response to the US having or using it, they would have attempted a nuclear programme regardless because it was a period of significant military investment. They might not have put quite so much emphasis on it if the US had not gotten there first, but it would still have happened.

We have to assume that Russia will not use them against Europe unless attacked first.

Why do we? We have to assume, given his issues at home, his desperation to cling to power (in the face of a likely short lifespan should he fall from grace) and his history of military aggression and disregard for Western sensibilities or the norms of modern diplomacy and warfare, that Putin doesn't intrinsically take anything off the table.

O.

[Maeght]

NATO IS A MUTUAL DEFENCE TREATY!

NATO Charter, article 3 - "In order more effectively to achieve the objectives of this Treaty, the Parties, separately and jointly, by means of continuous and effective self-help and mutual aid, will maintain and develop their individual and collective capacity to resist armed attack"

Of course Putin is trying to artificially create a difference, he's trying to delegitamise NATO, because NATO stands in the way of his Imperialist and territorial ambitions in Easter Europe.

That's not a mutual defence agreement, that's the terms of a peace negotiation to bring about the cessation of war, in this instance a war of aggression by Russia. Why would Ukraine, which has twice been invade by Russia in the last decade, be considering its mutual defence pact to be with Russia? Why would any of the other former Soviet nations be interested in that, given Russia's track record in recent years?

O.

NATO did take actions which it can be argued were not defensive in bombing Yugoslavia though didn't it? I understand the argument was that it was in the interest of regional stability but this is debated.

[Outrider]

NATO did take actions which it can be argued were not defensive in bombing Yugoslavia though didn't it? I understand the argument was that it was in the interest of regional stability but this is debated.

And even more debatable in Iraq and Afghanistan, as Spud said. I'd like to think that at least some of the reluctance to take an active involvement in Ukraine has been because they learnt from those situations. Unfortunately, I think on balance some involvement in the Balkans was probably justified (if not, perhaps, all of that precise involvement in hindsight), but where Afghanistan and Iraq probably weren't, they're now applying those lessons to Ukraine which, like the Balkans, probably did warrant their involvement.

Thus Ukraine pays the penalty for the US' led errors in the middle-East.

O.

[Maeght]

And even more debatable in Iraq and Afghanistan, as Spud said. I'd like to think that at least some of the reluctance to take an active involvement in Ukraine has been because they learnt from those situations. Unfortunately, I think on balance some involvement in the Balkans was probably justified (if not, perhaps, all of that precise involvement in hindsight), but where Afghanistan and Iraq probably weren't, they're now applying those lessons to Ukraine which, like the Balkans, probably did warrant their involvement.

Thus Ukraine pays the penalty for the US' led errors in the middle-East.

O.

I wasn't sure if Afghanistan and Iraq was done under the name of NATO whereas I knew Yugoslavia was - but that may be semantics. The argument that NATO is purely defensive is hard to uphold given these actions.

[Outrider]

I wasn't sure if Afghanistan and Iraq was done under the name of NATO whereas I knew Yugoslavia was - but that may be semantics. The argument that NATO is purely defensive is hard to uphold given these actions.

The Balkans was both pitched as defensive and served the purpose - it was about confining the conflict to prevent it spreading into a wider arena. Iraq and Afghanistan were pitched as defensive, about breaking up the potential 'axis of evil' that was supposed to be threatening the West, but terrorism is not classic military action and military action shouldn't have been the response - compound that with the background disinformation and the mission creep, and it quickly became something outside of the justification even if the justification had been valid. That laid the groundwork for the unnecessarily (if understandable) response to both the Russian invasions of Ukraine.

O.

[Spud]

Three. UK, USA, France.

NATO has no territory. NATO is not a state, it's an alliance. It has no government, not citizenry, it doesn't levy taxes, it owns no military equipment, it has not soldiers.

The territory Russia has gained is the result of NATO expansion.

[Spud]

Why would a defensive alliance want to balance itself against an aggressive, imperialist neighbour with a history of invasions instead of presenting an overwhelmingly superior military alliance?

Because if it did, the aggressive country wouldn't have the need to be aggressive.

[Spud]

There could be a clause that says if Russia uses any weapons against Ukraine the entirety of the Western hemisphere would retaliate. We could base it around the North Atlantic, and have a treaty about it...

I prefer "The Parties [USA , Russia] shall cooperate on the basis of principles of indivisible, equal and undiminished security and to these ends:" see article 1 of draft treaty

[Spud]

The Soviet nuclear programme was about developing a superior weapon - it was part of an arms race, it wasn't solely a response to the US having or using it, they would have attempted a nuclear programme regardless because it was a period of significant military investment. They might not have put quite so much emphasis on it if the US had not gotten there first, but it would still have happened.

Why do we? We have to assume, given his issues at home, his desperation to cling to power (in the face of a likely short lifespan should he fall from grace) and his history of military aggression and disregard for Western sensibilities or the norms of modern diplomacy and warfare, that Putin doesn't intrinsically take anything off the table.

O.

The nuclear superpowers need to work towards reducing their nuclear arsenals, as that leads to a safer world. That's why their leaders need to be able to cooperate. While there are vast numbers of nukes, there needs to be as much distance between their respective deployment sites as possible, so as to not cause barriers to dialogue between the superpowers. Expanding the US nuclear umbrella closer and closer to Russia causes cooperation to break down. Key here is actions that could be perceived by the other side as causing a threat to its security, such as placing military infrastructure near each others' borders. That's why Russia wanted a treaty in 2021 in which the US committed to not doing that.

[ad_orientem]

The nuclear superpowers need to work towards reducing their nuclear arsenals, as that leads to a safer world. That's why their leaders need to be able to cooperate. While there are vast numbers of nukes, there needs to be as much distance between their respective deployment sites as possible, so as to not cause barriers to dialogue between the superpowers. Expanding the US nuclear umbrella closer and closer to Russia causes cooperation to break down. Key here is actions that could be perceived by the other side as causing a threat to its security, such as placing military infrastructure near each others' borders. That's why Russia wanted a treaty in 2021 in which the US committed to not doing that.

No! We should be bombing the shit out of moscow, and if that worries you, you should go and build yourself a shelter!

[ad_orientem]

The territory Russia has gained is the result of NATO expansion.

Sure!🤡

[Outrider]

The nuclear superpowers need to work towards reducing their nuclear arsenals, as that leads to a safer world.

Not really. They can all destroy each other multiple times over - reducing it to only once each doesn't really make much difference, reducing it below that arguably makes it more dangerous - someone might think it's worth the sacrifice.

That's why their leaders need to be able to cooperate.

That's not a mode of thought that can reliably be attributed to Putin or Trump.

While there are vast numbers of nukes, there needs to be as much distance between their respective deployment sites as possible, so as to not cause barriers to dialogue between the superpowers.

Knowing the opposition can launch from close and there's nothing Russia can do about it is, arguably, a better security consideration.

Expanding the US nuclear umbrella closer and closer to Russia causes cooperation to break down.

That's not happening. Even if Russia were worried about nukes in Ukraine, which seems unlikely, that's no closer than Poland or Latvia or Lithuania or on a sub in any one of a dozen maritime locations around Russia.

Key here is actions that could be perceived by the other side as causing a threat to its security, such as placing military infrastructure near each others' borders. That's why Russia wanted a treaty in 2021 in which the US committed to not doing that.

NATO already has access to the Russian border, making that potential border bigger makes no real difference to their potential access to Russia, but it makes a hell of a difference to Russia's capacity to invade Eastern Europe.

Again.

O.

[Spud]

No! We should be bombing the shit out of moscow, and if that worries you, you should go and build yourself a shelter!

No point, although my neighbour unearthed one in his garden just last week. Problem with bombing Moscow is it would lead to a full-on exchange which even if anyone survived the explosions, the planet would apparently be uninhabitable.

[Spud]

reducing it below that arguably makes it more dangerous - someone might think it's worth the sacrifice.

I don't follow your logic here.

[Spud]

That's not a mode of thought that can reliably be attributed to Putin or Trump.

We have to give them a chance.

[Spud]

Knowing the opposition can launch from close and there's nothing Russia can do about it is, arguably, a better security consideration.

Not going to happen though. You forgot about their submarines, for a start.

[Spud]

That's not happening. Even if Russia were worried about nukes in Ukraine, which seems unlikely, that's no closer than Poland or Latvia or Lithuania or on a sub in any one of a dozen maritime locations around Russia.

While Russia put up with it, expanding the nuclear unbrella closer to Russia has indeed led to deteriorating East-West relations.

NATO already has access to the Russian border, making that potential border bigger makes no real difference to their potential access to Russia, but it makes a hell of a difference to Russia's capacity to invade Eastern Europe.

Again.

O.

So what is it about Ukraine that make Russia so averse to it joining NATO?
Crimea perhaps? That if Ukraine tried to recapture it, it would have NATO backing? Putin has mentioned this.

[ad_orientem]

No point, although my neighbour unearthed one in his garden just last week. Problem with bombing Moscow is it would lead to a full-on exchange which even if anyone survived the explosions, the planet would apparently be uninhabitable.

Worth the risk, if you ask me!

[Steve H]

Trump: "Guess what the deal is."
Zelenskiyy "I give in."
Trump "Correct!"

The latest 'Private Eye' front cover.

[jeremyp]

But he has been controlling the defenestrations and polonium cocktail deliveries so far with impunity.

Because he's relatively strong. Show a bit of weakness and he will be the next one enjoying a trip from the fourth floor to the ground.

[Outrider]

I don't follow your logic here.

Someone might think that, if the enemy only has enough weapons to kill of half of your country rather than all of it, that sacrificing that half might be worth the risk of launching. There's a lower point at which 'enough' becomes 'not enough' deterrent before you get to full disarmament.

We have to give them a chance.

No, we don't, we have to judge them based on their previous actions. Trump demonstrably couldn't give a shit what happens to Ukraine, and actively wants to bail Putin out of the shitshow that he's started. Putin has a demonstrable history of talking peace for a few years and then invading someone else. If Trump doesn't want any part of peacekeeping or mutual defence, he needs to butt the fuck out of negotiations, take his toys and go back home. Putin needs to be put in a tightly controlled, tightly monitored treaty where there are real penalties for even thinking about breaching the terms.

Not going to happen though. You forgot about their submarines, for a start.

Russia's navy is even more of a joke than their land forces, which have performed abysmally. Nobody is worried about Russian subs at the moment.

While Russia put up with it, expanding the nuclear umbrella closer to Russia has indeed led to deteriorating East-West relations.

Again, nobody's talking about putting anything nuclear in Ukraine, but even if they were that's not any closer to Russia than they are now. East-West relations have deteriorated because Putin keeps invading places, and the excuses he keeps giving are 'but we're under attack' - nobody's attacking Russia, nobody wants it.

So what is it about Ukraine that make Russia so averse to it joining NATO?

Some of it is the food and mineral supplies that the corrupt oligarchy want to share out between them, which might for a short while plug the huge holes in the Russian economy. Part of it is that it's the only real avenue for expansion back into Europe for Putin's imperialist ambitions. A third part is securing the land corridor to the warm-water port he's established by annexing Crimea.

Crimea perhaps? That if Ukraine tried to recapture it, it would have NATO backing? Putin has mentioned this.

It's going to be a key component of the peace negotiations when they really start - Ukraine are going to want it back, but Russia aren't going to want to let it go. If Russia keep it, but don't get a land corridor, the whole thing is just being set up for another invasion in a few years time. If Ukraine gets it back, Russia are going to be itching for another go, Europe will have to put considerable thought into how they're going to help protect it in the future.

In four years time, when Trump's been booted, perhaps someone with some sense will get into the White House, and Ukrainian acceptance into NATO will be viable again - or, earlier than that, if Trump decides he's had enough of NATO and convinces enough of Congress to withdraw from it.

O.

[Sassy]

Again, what?

You need an education in end time theology and bible teaching.
You see there have been recent prophets in your life time.  People like the late David Wilkerson and his book The vision.
He spoke of things like monetary union and financial problems.