Talk of Ukraine joining NATO may well have been what triggered this war. Russia probably had plans to absorb Ukraine eventually, but if Ukraine had joined NATO it would have required a war with NATO to absorb even a small part of Ukraine, such as Dunbas. So, when talk of joining NATO heated up, Putin had to invade quickly or lose the opportunity to take Ukraine without a much larger war.

It now appears that any of Russia's neighbours who are not currently members of a military alliance with a nuclear power have three options:

1. Join NATO, ally with China, or find somebody else with nuclear weapons to ally with.

2. Develop nuclear weapons.

3. Do nothing in order to avoid an immediate invasion, but start brushing up on your Russian because you'll need it eventually.

It is now abundantly clear that remaining on good terms with NATO countries is not sufficient in itself to ensure security from invasion by Russia. Economic sanctions and harsh language will not stop Putin.

It's worth noting that Taiwan is in a similar situation with respect to China. They are being threatened with invasion, but have no formal military alliances with nuclear powers. Judging from the U.S.'s reaction to the invasion of Ukraine, the U.S. would do little more than apply sanctions if China invaded Taiwan. Not unless the U.S. has special feelings for Taiwan that it does not have for Ukraine at any rate.

There was zero chance Ukraine would have ever been admitted to NATO. Everybody understood that, including Putin and his generals. And while NATO and the U.S. maintained the official position (perhaps better characterized as a non-position) that any country, including Ukraine, remained free to apply to NATO, member states like Germany would have vetoed and almost certainly privately gave such assurances to Putin. Moreover, the last decade of shenanigans from Turkey and then Hungary have soured even the U.S.'s appetite for future NATO admissions of any country outside Western and Central Europe.

Ukraine missed its window for NATO membership by about 20 years. Today the U.S. wouldn't even seriously imply Ukraine had a chance at membership. Russian apologists would point out that Ukraine already entered quasi-formal "dialogue", but fail to mention that such such dialogue has been frozen for nearly 20 years. The status quo (which has no actual substance, anyhow) is for all intents and purposes permanently frozen. One might reasonably criticize NATO and the U.S. for leaving things as they are--to fester. The counter argument is that by making a formal concession it would only embolden Russia, which would never change their tune even if NATO formally renounced the possibility of Ukraine joining. Perhaps more importantly, it would be a huge loss for Ukrainian reformists. (There was a similar motivation behind the EU's long refusal to state the obvious regarding Turkey's membership in the EU.)

Beyond Putin's general revanchist sentiments, what he and other Russian leaders really worry about is de facto Ukrainian-EU economic integration, not NATO. There's little chance (but perhaps non-zero, and greater than Turkey's) Ukraine could ever join the EU anytime soon. But there's an infinite number of intermediate relationships, all of which disfavor Russia--at least from the Russian perspective.

This was always the case. Turkey needed to help in Korea (1950) to get into NATO (1952). With annexation of half the Cyprus, and the tensions with Greece and buying NATO-incompatible S400 defense missiles from Russia, it kept being a problem-child. It weirdly remains also the only member which recently had armed conflict against Russia.

It's still a member though because of geopolitics. It's risky business but it has its rewards.

I don't see the same situation in Ukraine.

Disclosure: I'm from Turkey but I despise some of the acts I named above. I won't name which because I still want to go there and see my parents every once in a while.

Turkey was completely blackhanded as a military ally by NATO, long before Erdogun. NATO made an extremely costly error of accommodating the Greek junta, and later closing eyes on Cyprus.

By all reasonable judgement, NATO should've backed Turkey, and not Greece, but they did it the other way around.

If not for that, it wouldn't have set seeds of doubt which lead to the situation you see now, and probably would've averted the 1980 coup.

Turkey has NATO's most powerful conventional military on this side of the Atlantic, second NATO army by size, and conventional firepower after the USA.

Macaron trying to intimidate Turkey, and marginalise Turkey's NATO role in this day, and age is absurd, and suicidal. Turkey leaving NATO = say bye bye half of NATO's conventional force on this side of the Atlantic. Turkey's troops could not be replaced by ANY NATO member since USA is already overstretched.

I could've added much more strong words.

Are you sure you are being neutral here? I'm pretty sure the Turkish army was the oppressor, at least in this case... and what Greek junta?

> Turkey has NATO's most powerful conventional military on this side of the Atlantic

Conventional military means nothing. Turkey can't even close the Bosporus in these times of war because of Russian pressure. Just read the news.

By the way I sound like a typical "reformed former citizen who hates their roots", I know. But I actually love the country, just not the politics.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greek_junta

It collapsed just 3 months after the Cyprus events https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1974_Greek_legislative_electio...

The junta was gone, but NATO countries, and Turkish state had to live together ever since.

"NATO welcomes Ukraine’s and Georgia’s Euro-Atlantic aspirations for membership in NATO. We agreed today that these countries will become members of NATO."

https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natolive/official_texts_8443.htm

Assuming Russia did nothing it would have happened eventually.

The reason NATO exists is because small countries in europe were afaid of USSR, and nowdays Russia.

Nato is defensive pact, as such there is no threat coming from nato to any non nato country.

Now a independent neighbor of Russia is trying to join nato to not be bullied by russia. Russia is not liking it because they will not be able to fuck with Ukraine any more and not because they are afraid of anything.

This war is a proof why Ukraine was 100% justified to seek nato membership not other way around.

We should stop victim blaming Ukraine.

I dont see any reason why NATO working to destabilize Libya that passes muster that doesnt apply equally well to Russia. The idea that it was acting defensively is a farce. A conservative assessment is that Libya is a model for what they are aiming for in Russia in the long term.

Ukraine is the victim and Russia is the aggressor but the west essentially gave a stick to a child and encouraged it to poke the bear before running away and hiding behind a rock.

We could have prevented this.

Russia claims its a democratic country with highest standards of freedoms, why would they feel threatened?

> "an immediate ceasefire in Libya, including an end to the current attacks against civilians"

Anyone claiming NATO was an aggressor akin to what Russia is doing now is a fool.

Russia feels threatened because NATO was set up specifically to oppose them and is not all that interested in democracy that doesnt threaten western hegemonic interests.

You dont exactly see NATO threatening Mohammed bin Salman for invading Yemen do you?

And if democracy is so important why is it official policy that the crimean referendum be annulled rather than re-held?

>Anyone claiming NATO was an aggressor akin to what Russia is doing now is a fool.

NATO destroyed Libya. The fact it did it at arms length is immaterial.

To pretend it is not a threat to Russia is farcical.

By west you mean US? Its not like europe was active in any of those, bar illegal invasion of Iraq and Afganistan lead by US forces.

> Russia feels threatened because NATO was set up specifically to oppose them

Hmm I wonder why? Why nato was not set up to stop those dangerous Turkish people, or blood thirsty Ukrainians, but peaceful USSR, and then Russian Federation lead by exKGB spies... hmmm I wonder why anyone would be concerned.

> official policy that the crimean referendum be annulled rather than re-held?

LOL, ok you are a troll at this point. Fighting with 'whataboutism' is pointless

If you and putin love democracy so much why dont you setup referendum for Chechnya people? Lets see how that vote goes.

> NATO destroyed Libya. The fact it did it at arms length is immaterial.

Nato targeted and destroyed Libyan army, know your facts. There was no ground forces ever deployed.

To pretend NATO ever threaten any aggression to Russia, Russian civilians or Russian soil is a farce bigger then you.

Why is this often mentioned? What is Germany’s rationale and is this still a certainty? Perhaps these comments were more closely related to Schröder (because gas pipeline) but certainly a different generation now.

edit: France and Germany were the two opposed countries.

I mean, i can understand some controversy around the actions of Turkey because of a variety of reasons, but Germany?

Two reasons:

1. Germany depends on Russia for gas, and the two countries have business and economic ties

2. Germany and France are the main 'providers' in the EU, kinda like California, Texas, New York in the US. They have to pay more if they admit a big poor country like Ukraine (44m pop., and would be second poorest in EU after Greece. Pop. of Germany and France: 83m, 67m respectively).

It was about NATO, not EU membership.

First of all is the close history that the Social Democrats have with Russia, dating back to former Chancellor Willy Brandt and the Neue Ostpolitik, and renewed by the 1998-2006 former Chancellor Gerhard Schröder who initiated the Nord Stream 1 gas pipeline and infamously worked as a high-profile lobbyist for Gazprom after his period and is rumored to be a close personal friend of Vladimir Putin for years now.

Then we have the history of the 1968-era hippies, the peace movement and large parts of the radical left, which has to this day strong ties to the Green Party, the Left Party (which is the successor of the former GDR's ruling SED) and partially also to the Social Democrat Party. Many of my comrades are still stuck in the Cold War anti-imperialist mindset (where only the Western / NATO sphere is seen as an aggressor) and fail to see that both modern China and Russia are imperialist agents on their own. Hopefully the events of the last few days will wake up some of them, though.

And finally, the entire gas clusterfuck.

1) A lot of residential heating - not just in Germany by the way, but also across wide parts of Eastern Europe and Italy - depends on either gas or oil, as electric heating is ridiculously expensive (at >30 ct/kWh!).

2) electricity. The Conservative/Christian Democrat CDU, whose Chancellor Merkel ruled for the last 16 years before finally getting booted out of office last year, took pride in demolishing the domestic solar and wind turbine industry (the former by cutting subsidies which was followed by Chinese dumping taking over the market, the latter by imposing ridiculous zoning requirements [1]) and was happily accepting "donations" (aka legal bribery) from the fossil fuel industry, and their Bavarian sister party CSU (as well as a number of various local NIMBY movements, called "Bürgerinitiativen") keeps throwing impediments against high-power electric lines to expand the electric grid so that it can distribute Nothern German-generated wind power to the South (Bavaria and Baden-Württemberg). Combined with the phase-out of coal-fired plants and nuclear plants, gas peakers have risen in importance [2].

3) We don't have many alternatives as a continent to source gas from, other than pipelines. There are no LNG import terminals in Germany [3], we have to rely on the import capacity of the Netherlands, France and Belgium [4]. At the same time, the Dutch gas field at Groningen is suffering from earthquakes following the gas extraction [5], Norway doesn't have much spare capacity [6] and the UK only has enough gas reserves to make 42% of their own demand [7], not to mention the Brexit aftermath which included the UK getting booted off the EU energy market.

4) We have a lot of industry (especially petro-chemical and metal) relying on gas for energy and as a raw material. About a third of industrial energy consumption is gas-based [8].

We are in a "perfect storm" situation, and now over 40 years of lackluster politics across the board are crashing down on our head.

[1]: https://www1.wdr.de/nachrichten/landespolitik/windraeder-abs...

[2]: https://www.tagesschau.de/wirtschaft/deutschland-braucht-neu...

[3]: https://www.tagesspiegel.de/wirtschaft/knappe-gaslieferungen...

[4]: https://www.tagesschau.de/wirtschaft/technologie/lng-termina...

[5]: https://www.deutschlandfunk.de/gasfoerderung-in-den-niederla...

[6]: https://www.zdf.de/nachrichten/politik/norwegen-regierungsch...

[7]: https://www.zeit.de/wirtschaft/2021-09/gaspreis-grossbritann...

[8]: https://www.destatis.de/DE/Presse/Pressemitteilungen/2021/12...

What used to be East Germany then is Germany now. It's not exactly a crazy development.

But there are indeed some nostalgics here, who like Putin and the eastern empire.

Also take into account that until recently, Russia has been considered a reliable business partner in Germany, to the point that many Germans considered a russo-german partnership to be more advantageous than the current transatlantic one. While support for that idea waned in popularity a little after the Crimea takeover, some, now more on the political fringes, still do today.

"On February 25, 1994, Putin was also in attendance. One distinguished guest, then-President of Estonia Lennart Meri, gave a speech. Putin did something that has never happened at this ceremony: he got up and left. "With his legs straight [ed.: in a marching stance], throwing a contemptuous glance at the host, he left the hall, every step accompanied by the creaking of the parquet," according to a correspondent for the German magazine Zeit. "His exit was followed by whispers. Who is he? What's his problem?"

What exactly did Meri say that so annoyed Putin? The speech reads like a prophecy of what happened 20 years later in Crimea. And Putin's reaction shows that he sent a clear signal to the West.

The Estonian president referred to a paper from the foreign ministry in Moscow: "It notes that the problem of ethnic Russian groups in countries neighboring Russia cannot be solved by diplomatic means alone." Other means were conceivable for Moscow, Meri concluded. He warned against Russia's "neo-imperialist policy" and appealed to integrate Eastern European countries, including Ukraine, into the "democratic world."

Lennart Meri was a former filmmaker, literary translator, writer and IMO a world class intellectual with excellent speeches. For anyone interested, I google-translated this Hamburg 1994 speech to English [2]. The original source in Estonian is also present on the homepage of President's Office [3].

1: https://www.dw.com/en/vladimir-putins-infamous-history-in-ha...

2: https://zerobin.net/?5938a7875752194a#kVyn/9uj46bUH+M1z7rk+w...

3: https://vp1992-2001.president.ee/est/k6ned/K6ne.asp?ID=4236

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russians_in_Estonia

If after ~30 years after break-up of USSR you have not gone back to russia (because quality of life in Estonia or Latvia is probably better), or have not learned the language or do not want to pledge loyalty to the country - then such person is a problem to itself. My social anecdotal bubble tells me that most of such people are very pro-soviet-union, but somehow idea of moving back to "mother russia" scares them.

Also in most post-soviet states russian communities can live all their lives without learning local language, i.e. there are native-russian kindergartens, schools, even university programs, russian entertainment and they can expect and be able to communicate almost everywhere in russian. So where's the bad treatment?

Putin's propaganda machine will make shit up on the spot - treatment of russian speaking communities is one of them. Maybe you also believe that there's fascist junta in Ukraine or Estonia? russian troll industry are masters of fake news - that will flood everything with multiple bullshit statements.

No, that is a statement that I consider false. I do personally live in a country that has a sizeable ethnic minority (Hungarians/Szekely, depending on the particular region of the country where they live [1]), and many of them do not know the local/national language, which is Romanian. Many of my fellow citizens regard that as almost blasphemy, I (and the law itself) actually have the contrary view, those people have the same right to Romanian citizenship as I do, even if they don't/can't speak the Romanian language.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hungarians_in_Romania

While statelessness in the Baltic countries is a very controversial issue, I don't believe it'sas bad as people are making it out to be.

The absolute vast majority of those people don't care about the situation: they can work, they can travel through the EU and other countries, and they can play the victim card.

As a good example, Nils Ušakovs was the mayor of Riga, and his parents were stateless (and hi mother probably still is [1]). So its not like statelessness affects people other than the actual person (and the degree to which it affects them is very debatable).

[1] https://voxeurop.eu/en/a-russian-in-charge-in-riga/

https://twitter.com/rikardjozwiak/status/1496913193360400387

https://twitter.com/ger_osce/status/1496917994559066117?s=21

Belarus, Kazakhstan and Ukraine had nuclear weapons but gave them up because Russia agreed not to invade them.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Budapest_Memorandum_on_Secur...

The title comes from Pakistani leaders' declaration that they would acquire nuclear weapons capability even if it meant their citizens would have to eat grass. Every government with a viable nuclear weapons program that has abandoned it has come to regret that decision. The nuclear weapons states have utterly failed to make the NPT an attractive bargain for the non-nuclear weapons states, which has completely undermined the goal of non-proliferation.

They had a choice, they just chose the one that didn't lead to war.

Putin is insane, but his record of recklessness and betrayal simply doesn’t come close to the mischief of the United States on the global stage.

It is a minor miracle when voters can get their own government to follow through on an inconvenient promise. Promises mean nothing when foreign armies are involved.

ICBM launch silos and hypersonic missiles would be icing on the cake.

I cannot believe there actual proponents of nuclear armament and proliferation in 2022.

There will be more in the years to come if thanks to the current events. Plenty of people here and else where are quick to point out that Ukraine is in NATO and that Russia would not dare attack a nato country so this is all fine but at the end of the day NATO, like any treaty, is just a promise not inherently like the promise the Ukraine was made when they gave up their nuclear weapons. An attack on a NATO country will not mean an automatic response from all other NATO countries but instead prompt a decision from each of the leaders of those countries what would be better for their citizens at that point. Retaining their own protection via NATO is going to be a big influence of that decision but it is never going to be the only factor.

you may say that the threats of nuclear aggression were thinly veiled but not technically apply because the word nuclear has not been used. but if you applied an honest interpretation of what is happening you would say that point 4 does apply.

> 4. Seek immediate Security Council action to provide assistance to Belarus, Kazakhstan and Ukraine if they "should become a victim of an act of aggression or an object of a threat of aggression in which nuclear weapons are used".

nobody wants a nuclear war so it's better if the US stays out of it at this point, but just I'm pointing out that got screwed by more than one signer on that treaty.

The big lesson that the US and Russia are teaching Ukraine here is that they should have never given up their nuclear weapon. This whole event is terrible for the prevention of nuclear proliferation.

Its a joke, because once the Ukrainian population is psychologically motivated into guerrilla warfare against the Russians, it would be over in a day or two.

This invasion with media complicity, is just project fear or govt's around the world enjoying their population's desire to be governed. Russia is doing each and every govt around the world a favour by reinforcing the govt form of control instead of self determination.

Now if Russia went in with 1million troops, then it would be something to worry about, but this is all just psychological reinforcement of hierarchical control systems on populations.

Really? Has Putin actually said anything about nuclear weapons in the context of this war?

This is wildly incorrect. The US actually had a defense agreement with Taiwan at one point, but dropped the defense provision in the 70's for rapprochement with China. However, Taiwan has been a US ally since WW2, and has at times stationed many troops there. This is not even close to true about Ukraine.

Not to mention a Chinese invasion of Taiwan would be almost trivially easy for the US to stop. It's an island, and the US has naval and air supremacy.

This was maybe true in 1996, but less so today (at least from what I've heard).

China is rapidly approaching naval parity with the US, and they have enough land-based anti-ship missiles to deny most surface vessels access to the Taiwan straight.

That's not even considering the logistical aspects of it all. Taiwan is 150km from the coast of China and 10,000km away from the coast of the US...

That's one of the great innovations of the US military model. Ensuring air domination allows them to effectively expand control by simply placing bases. Britain had done that in the past with naval forces but their logistic challenges are more complicated when it comes to defending supply lines.

What if they Putined their way into Taiwan? "We are going to invade, if you stop us it's nuke time". Would the US risk a nuke on their head for Taiwan?

That's what is commonly believed, but that belief is actually wrong - other NATO members are obligated to - and I quote directly from Article 5 here - "(...) assist the Party or Parties so attacked by taking forthwith, individually and in concert with the other Parties, such action as it deems necessary, including the use of armed force, (...)"

The keywords here are "as it deems necessary" and "including the use of armed forces". There is no automatic need to send troops - if you as the attacked party think a strongly worded letter is all that is necessary, you just ask for that letter. Of course you can demand military support, but doing so takes time, and it is easy to consider a situation in which you do not have that time anymore.

For an application of that principle, see 9/11, when the US invoked Article 5, but which did not result in military action from all NATO members (several of which refused to take part in "pointless military adventures"). The US obstracized those countries, but ultimately (had to?) accept.

Note that Russia not only have to contend with sanctions: They also need to remain domestically on high alert for sabotage and terrorism.

Unfortunate reality is that the west collectively lost their balls post 9/11 due to the needless wars sapping the spirit. They would wait till its too late and by then its too late. The politician with actual brains and balls and who has kept europe whole and safe so far has recently retired and the rest are just good for press releases.

I also thought this. Would other NATO members really step in to defend Poland? I know the treaty obliges them to, but in reality would they?

My guess is that Putin just wanted to scare a few people and may be annex the rebel areas. But the weak response has encouraged him to see how far this can be taken. When will the current DefCon change? He would continue till that happens. It's not because he is stupid or crazy. It's a decent strategy to see where the opponents limits for patience are. He would turn around the moment there is some ground action or strict measures like announcing a no fly zone over Ukraine enforced by NATO. Till, then the smart move would be to push forward in Ukraine.

We lived once thru this in 1939. NO one will join in to defend Poland. Germany might even make another deal with Russia to "save EU".

Also most Russian don't seem to be even close to being as enthusiastic as the majority of Nazi Germans were when their tanks rolled into Paris. Russians seem to be mostly apathetic, they don't really support the war but also are not willing to actually stand up and do anything about it. That might change if there is not quick victory/large amounts of civilians start being killed/sanctions actually start working.

Once the coffins start to come back to mother Russia domestic support for occupation will plummet even further locally in Russia.

Even in USSR, with censorship and active repression USSR was still bringing back afghan war coffins in the dead of the night.

The situations in 1939 and 2022 are only similar insofar as we are talking about the same country. Everything else is different.

Czechoslovakia would probably be a much better example (however NATO did not exactly agree to recognize the annexation of Crimea and the Donbas just to appease Putin).

More than that, I think reading between the lines it's quite likely Putin and Xi Jinping have already agreed to back each other in the security council so that Russia can take Ukraine and China can take Taiwan without issue. This may have been planned for years, even, though it is right to point out that hinting at adding Ukraine to NATO without any real intentions to do so has had disastrous consequences.

The Russian forces in Chernobyl came from Belarus...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Union_State

That is not correct afaik.

Besides that the downsides associated with all this far outweigh the upside of where NATO's borders are.

Usual disclaimer, I don't consider any of the above a valid reason to start a war ot interfere in othet countries.

And so he starts the invasion which will effectively push every bordering country into running towards NATO?

> If Russia attacks a member of NATO then all members of NATO are obligated to join in defence militarily

And? They can't actually respond militarily because MAD.

NATO is useless if the enemy knows you won't initiate MAD, but they can (democracy vs dictatorship).

Why? Of course they would. And yes we would all die. It's the other way around - a NATO country wouldn't be attacked by Russia because yes, NATO would attack back.

In fact Republicans are already saying that even sanctions aren't acceptable. Going to war... not a chance!

https://twitter.com/TuckerCarlson/status/1497033251424190466

That's what it says on paper, yes. That's the theory.

Removing Putin would be massive relief for most of Russia I think, and most of the world at this point. The man is unhinged

By the way Germany also has nukes, not their own ones, but they are not just there for fun.

Of course they would respond. MAD is just a mad possibility we all have to accept. As soon as russia attacks NATO with conventional weapons it will fight back with conventional weapons. But if Putin starts nukes, well than there is obviously only one answers to it (nukes).

Just all sad to see that the interests of a few shed blood of many.

Other thing is about MAD. At some point this hypothesis needs to be tested. Yes, as a child of the cold war I am well aware of the stories about there being a warhead with my city's name in Cyrillic painted on it, and the same with every city in Russia, in English. We're conditioned to think that as soon as the missiles are launched, countermissiles will also launch, and then we're all doomed, planet is handed over to cockroaches.

I'm not sure it's true. For one, it's actually happened that missiles looked like they were in the air, and a Soviet guy decided it was best not to send missiles back, and we're all still here. I also get the feeling, from introspecting, that a lot of people would not actually press the button if they saw that radar picture. Would you make the world unlivable for little Russian kids? I'm not sure I would, and though I don't know how many people are making these decisions, my guess is it would be really freaking hard.

Which bring me to my next point, and this will cause some consternation. How bad is it if a nuke or two goes off? We care that the whole world isn't turned to dust, but if we get another Hiroshima somewhere, apart from the enormous shock it would cause, it might stand a reasonable chance of ending whatever conflict it happened in, just like the actual two nuclear attacks in Japan. Is that totally crazy, or is MAD literally coded into the machines now? Maybe someone can enlighten me.

If we consider the situation of just 1-2 warheads are used in a conflict, I think it really hard to gauge the effect on public perception, and I suppose it also depends on the circumstances. If for instance, they were used in an unprovoked terrorist attack, killing 2-4million in a city, the response could be like after 9/11, but x100.

If they were used to stop a military aggressor, killing "only" 10k soldiers in the field, their may lose their mythical status, and this could be the opening of Pandora's box, increasing the probability that they are used in later conflicts.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zZcZ6eJoxeE

Sorry, thread needed some levity.

It was restarted a couple years ago with commercial involvement. Possibly a Starlink derivative. Putin must be aware.

https://wikipedia.org/wiki/Starlink#Military_capabilities

http://www.hisutton.com/Belgorod-Class-Submarine.html

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kh-47M2_Kinzhal https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Avangard_(hypersonic_glide_veh...

Is it really necessary to lead with "Again"? It makes me feel like you think I can't understand, and therefore you're smarter than me, that you are some know-it-all who has to be right, and that it's zero sum so that I must also therefore be wrong for you to be right. Your informative and accurate point can be made without that word.

We can and should learn from each other. You know a lot and I want to learn from you.

I hope that wasn't too antagonistic, I just wanted to explain how your comment made me feel. I had some very mean things to say to you before writing this out. Thank you for posting, I wasn't aware of Starlink's military implications.

One of the traditional decoys of an ICBM are basically launching a bunch of decoy mylar balloons with the warhead in one as well. The last round of interceptors couldn't figure out which of the balloons was the actual warhead. Then the government made the results secret.

Worse now is the hypersonic weapons which won't have constant or "ballistic" trajectory. They may be slower in space, but they have maneuverability -- which will allow them to avoid being targeted by the systems the US has.

Wikipedia's definitions are what I understand about it.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Missile_defense#Mid-course_pha...

With boost phase you have around 180 seconds to see it and to react to it.

- Park nukes in space -> no launch, you just drop them on your enemy - Tungsten rods -> put a couple of tungsten rods into a launch satellite and have them rain down from space on your enemy

Not sure that this is such a good idea.

Putting nukes or tungsten rods in space wouldn't accomplish much. You can't just "drop" an object from orbit. Instead you need to conduct a burn to de-orbit and head toward the target. So it doesn't save much time compared to hitting the target directly with a missile launched from Earth. Launch satellites themselves would be vulnerable to anti-satellite defenses so they would be shot down early in any major conflict. And nuclear weapons can't be left unattended indefinitely; they require maintenance at least every few years in order to operate reliably.

Missile defense is as it exists today is not a deterrent.

> called the project "fundamentally destabilizing".[192]

As we see today, the situation is not that terribly stable.

And I'm sure there are lots of simulations that show a survivable outcome, even if it turns out to not be true in reality.

Even in the USA, there's been talk of developing small tactical nuclear weapons for use in a limited nuclear war.

https://rollcall.com/2017/02/02/pentagon-panel-urges-trump-t...

But the problem, of course, is once that nuclear snowball starts rolling, it's hard to stop it, and there's no predicting how big it'll get because leaders don't always act as they do in simulations.

Recent figures I read were 20M-40M for worst case scenarios.

Realistically, a coordinated all in launch is ~1000 warheads, with 400 of them megaton scale in R36 MIRVs from West Siberia.

First strike is only possible with computerised launch infrastructure operational. Beheading the command structure is a way to prevent an effective first strike.

Without it, assorted launches get detected early, giving time for counterattack.

The missile defence can much more easily shoot down 20 boosting missiles coming one by one, than 10 missiles coming simultaneously.

Why?

Because it would knock out most of our cars, electronics, payment systems, farm machinery, and everything else that we depend on to keep the supply chains our grocery stores depend on for food distribution.

See https://nationalinterest.org/blog/buzz/millions-americans-co... for verification.

I have no idea where your "worst case scenarios" come from. But they don't exactly seem "worst case" to me!

Nationwide long term total blackout is unlikely for many reasons.

(and it should be further noted that this conclusion was that the US carrying capacity for life would decrease to 30m sustained by like subsistence agriculture. I expect that those deaths of hundreds of millions would be over decades, not quickly, and I really really doubt that we'd be unable to recover more than some of our agricultural capacity in a decade)

See https://chris-said.io/2020/06/18/everything-ive-learned-abou...

Regardless of which side you believe, it is clear that any "worst case scenario" should include the possibility of an EMP attack that actually does take out the power grid.

Things are setup to fail safe which preserves equipment but defaults to turning everything off. Getting significant parts of the grid up again should take days even if your stuck with rolling blackouts for years.

Further, EMP isn’t a magic wand that instantly destroys all electronics, there is a huge range of sensitivity not just based on type of equipment but also if it’s running and the orientation it’s in. Taking out farm equipment that’s off is really difficult. The actual nukes are a much larger threat.

Even people in areas with no nukes, little fallout and not affected by nuclear winter could face mass starvation due to lack of fertilizers, diesel, spare parts for machines, etc.

Even in North America, Europe and North Asia, having the electric grids knocked out, central administrations crippled, much industry and agricultural infrastructure knocked out, followed by nuclear winter might see more people die from cold and starvation than from the nukes themselves.

Anyway, I don't think we really want to test this, even if the total numbers do not fully add up to complete destruction.

To be frank: That number's missing a zero.

It's nice to believe everyone is thinking their orders through but militaries exist to get people to do violence and they are often very good at their intended purpose. They explicitly seek to drive individualism out of people in order to ensure high discipline in uncertain circumstances when that discipline is most necessary.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vasily_Arkhipov

> Unlike the other submarines in the flotilla, three officers on board B-59 had to agree unanimously to authorize a nuclear launch: Captain Savitsky, the political officer Ivan Semonovich Maslennikov, and the chief of staff of the flotilla (and executive officer of B-59) Arkhipov.

Arkhipov had authority to veto the order. What's more, the captain was assuming war had begun and had no order from above to attack.

I don't think even Tiananmen is quite as cut-and-dry as you're making it out.

There were at least half a dozen generals who risked execution to publicly oppose the attack, and many of the commanders instructed their soldiers not to open fire on the crowds. The insubordination went down to the level of the individual soldier, and if more than a tiny minority of soldiers (namely the 27th army) had actually, genuinely been following orders then the casualties would be orders of magnitude higher than they were.

At least that's what I've heard from people who witnessed it.

I understood the point you are responding to differently than you - it is not about doing the (morally) "right" thing, it is about doing the self-preserving thing. I imagine there is always a lot of people willing to do horrible things when they can reasonably expect they will face no personal consequences (your Tiananmen Square massacre example, which would mean personal consequences for not doing it). The expectations are very different for officers hitting the launch button - they have to know that if they do it, it is very likely that they themselves and everybody they love will die or face horrible future in the post-apocalyptic world. I am not saying this means nobody will hit the button, I am just saying it makes doing it a lot harder and (hopefully) less likely.

Isn't violent repression nearly always triggered by protesters' violence (sometimes only by a fraction of them, sometimes by people acting up in order to trigger repression, sometimes through misinterpretation or some fake-flag operation...) ?

Isn't a well-rehearsed then conducted (in order to avoid and isolate provocations) peaceful protest efficient against it? Moreover even if it isn't efficient the net result (w/o any massive manipulation through mass-media) empowers the protesters through bystanders sympathy.

Of course not. In Russia peaceful protesters are routinely beaten for standing with a piece of paper. There wasn't much violence from protester's side for about a decade now because you get 3-7 years in prison for throwing a paper cup at a riot cop, or touching his helmet (not striking — simply touching). You can be peaceful all you like, it won't help you to get out of it unscathed. Just yesterday we got a few fresh examples (ironically from anti-war protests).

It can be more subconscious and insidious. Anger, hate, and violent action is incredibly contagious. Mob mentality hijacks brains, and spreads like wildfire among peers. It's likely part of our DNA and it takes a special awareness to escape its grip.

In short, we didn't stop using chemical weapons because of ethics (if thats the case, we should've given up landmines, which kill far more civilians).

Rather, chemical weapons are expensive to operate and ineffective weapons in modern battlefields.

Here is the relevant snippet from the blog:

"During WWII, everyone seems to have expected the use of chemical weapons, but never actually found a situation where doing so was advantageous. This is often phrased in terms of fears of escalation (this usually comes packaged with the idea of MAD (Mutually Assured Destruction), but that’s an anachronism – while Bernard Brodie is sniffing around the ideas of what would become MAD as early as ’46, MAD itself only emerges after ’62). Retaliation was certainly a concern, but I think it is hard to argue that the combatants in WWII hadn’t already been pushed to the limits of their escalation capability, in a war where the first terror bombing happened on the first day. German death-squads were in the initial invasion-waves in both Poland, as were Soviet death squads in their invasion of Poland in concert with the Germans and also later in the war. WWII was an existential war, all of the states involved knew it by 1941 (if not earlier), and they all escalated to the peak of their ability from the start; I find it hard to believe that, had they thought it was really a war winner, any of the powers in the war would have refrained from using chemical weapons. The British feared escalation to a degree (but also thought that chemical weapons use would squander valuable support in occupied France), but I struggle to imagine that, with the Nazis at the very gates of Moscow, Stalin was moved either by escalation concerns or the moral compass he so clearly lacked at every other moment of his life."

In that case the judgment was whether the telemetry was reliable enough to justify launching a retaliatory strike, with all the grave consequences that produces.

An unambiguous order to launch a first strike might not elicit the same kind of hesitation.

In any army of the world I would assume that, especially in the case of nuclear forces, orders to launch are not second guessed. After all, the whole concept of MAD depends on a swift counter attack. If those attack orders wouldn't be carried out fast, in the limited time frame available, something would be wrong.

Vlad Posner fairly recently made the point that because of strong anti-America sentiment in Russia, he is worried that this time the guy isn’t going to be as skeptical of the flashing light and is just going to hit the button.

This was discussed at length during the 70s and 80s, and a big reason why the superpowers started to reduce their arsenals, because there is no winner after the first nuke is launched, not even a small scale exchange can be trusted to remain small.

This is a terrifying time indeed

If you detonate all nukes you could destroy every city with population of over 100'000, worldwide. About 4'500 cities in total. You would still have around 1'500 nukes left. You would kill at least 3 billion people.

Keep in mind that this false alarm didn't look like an all out attack, but like only one missile (or a handful, I don't remember the details).

As Samy Farha put it excellently "in order to live you must be willing to die". Because poker is war and life :)

Why has the Ukraine not blown the gas lines?

> I don't know that NATO has the guts to give Putin that bloody nose.

Again…what? Based on NATO’s military inaction re: Ukraine, you’ve concluded that NATO will also do nothing if Russia were to actually attack NATO itself? The whole point of being in NATO is having the collective backing of its allied members.

And no, I don't think Putin is going to try to conquer Europe (at least I hope he's not that mad). I just wonder where the line for action is and whether it's "touching NATO soil" as you imply or something much more vague and flexible once the prospect of actual war is real.

So it’s not a stretch to think that once a Russian tank would cross into Poland it would be met with immediate lethal force.

[0] https://news.yahoo.com/downing-russia-jet-stab-back-putin-13...

It was one jet, and it wasn't fighter jet, but assault jet, it didn't carry any AA missiles and couldn't defend himself.

The line is the borders of the NATO countries. I don’t think it’s particularly controversial that if someone drove a tank into Poland offensively it would be promptly incinerated.

By clearly defining it, it makes it less likely to escalate to accidental MAD. We know the line, Russia knows the line. And they know the potential consequences should they choose to cross it.

On the other hand Russia has recently been opening their doctrine to allow nuclear strikes in response to conventional attacks. Further they threaten nuclear responses. They're intentionally blurring the lines because they feel they can get away shenanigans in the confusion.

If Russia launches nukes - there's nuclear response, but at that point it's not really "escalation", just extended suicide by Russia.

Anything else would put you at a severe disadvantage.

The goal here is to prevent one invasion, not start another one.

But there ought to be enough fighters in Europe to swat anything flying in Ukraine out of the sky.

It will or there will be no NATO. It's the whole point. Certainly Poland won't just give up not to make other NATO countries angry.

So yes, Putin probably is considering this scenario at least in his wet dreams...

And it seems like largest country in Europe (by area), with 200 thousand strong army, tons od most sophisticated NATO weapons and 8 years of combat experience have collpased like a house of cards within 24 hours. Do you think Polish or German army will do any better? Or does Russia have better opinion of these armies? So, yes this is possible now... Thereotically...

And history knows larger miscalculations...

Where did you get this idea?

Ukrain has only a tiny airforce, no modern air defences, and most heavy military hardware, from artillery to tanks, is cold war vintage.

NATO never supplied it with modern fighter jets and missile systems, if it had, Russian helicopters would not be circling Kiev right now.

"Every Russian general is born with the ambition of driving his tanks to the Atlantic Ocean"

This is not helpfull, Russia has the idea that it should be able to do as it pleasesnl in its sphere of influence, but I never met anyone thinking it stretched to include anything past former eastern block borders.

France may not like that. They're not in NATO. But they have nuclear weapons.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_NATO

Yes, they are, and have been since NATO was founded. From 1966-2009 they did not participated in the Integrated Military Command Structure, despite remaining fully in the alliance.

They still don't participate in the Nuclear Planning Council, and their troops are not put under permanent UN command in peacetime.

This should be “NATO command” not “UN command”.

Similarly, had NATO deployed 500k soldiers fully armed with modern weaponry in Poland, Lithuania and Rumania as Putin was building up his forces, and added a warning that Ukraine would be granted instant membership to NATO if he didn't pull back from the border, he probably would have pulled back from the border.

But NATO doesn't have those forces, primarily because most European countries have neglected their armed forces over the past 30 years. In reality, a conventional confrontation with Putin would be very difficult. Eventually NATO might win, but it would take years.

Given the fact that the EU alone has around 10x the GDP of Russia, the EU could relatively easily have had an army that is 2x to 5x more powerful than Russia's, even without assistance from the Anglosphere (which would have left the Anglosphere able to focus on China).

One may hope that the EU learns from this. Otherwise, I fear the result of today's events will be a massive level of nuclear proliferation. If NATO cannot even keep their neighbours safe, what confidence can more remote countries have that they will be protected if attacked by a nuclear power, such as Russia or China?

And once virtually every country has nukes, they WILL see use.

Europe used to be full of empires waging destructive wars all over the world. After two world wars, people had had enough. The predecessors of the EU were created to tame the former empires. To make them mutually dependent and act like ordinary countries. It worked, and Western Europe has enjoyed a lifetime of peace, which is unprecedented.

We Europeans are shitty people. If you tell us that it's ok to start acting like empires again and to send troops to fight wars far away from home, the world will have more than one Putin to worry about.

Britain and France seem less reluctant, probably taking some pride from standing up to Hitler in 1939, and this contributing to them seeing their armed forces primarily as defensive instruments. (Disregarding their long histories as colonial powers.)

Germany's latest experience with a large army was from a time it was used offensively, with catastrophic results for Germany. Nobody argues that Germany should build up that kind of force again.

But if peaceful countries are not able to protect themselves and each other from expansionist aggressors, seeing to annex territory, the world will most likely revert to something we've not really seen since the 19th century, just this time with nukes.

And with internal strife and polarization seeming to mostly pacify the US's ability to provide protection, combined with an increasingly powerful China flexing in East Asia, Europe may have to take some of the responsibility for maintaining the strength needed to guarantee peace.

The reason why the German Army was that big was the USSR and Warsaw pact. They were supposed to check any Soviet advance long enough, preferably before the Rhine, for the bulk of the US forces to show up after being shipped over the Atlantic. It would suck if that becomes necessary again, the high level of militarization during the Cold War was decidedly not a good thing.

This means that this time, Europe need to realize they have to be able to defend against an increasingly aggressive Russia _without_ significant US support, and may even have to have strength to spare to aid vs China. In other words, countries like Germany need to have military strength at least at the level they had during the cold war to do their part in providing safety and stability to Europe.

If this doesn't happen, I think Germany must expect that more and more countries in the area develops their own nukes, as that is the only alternative way to deter a power like Russia. How will Germany feel if Poland, Hungary, Rumania, Greece and Turkey suddenly all had their own nukes?

I would be more of a fan of a pan-EU force than a return to traditional national militaries.

Personally, I don't care much whether there is a pan-EU force or national militaries (tied together by both the EU and Nato) that fills this role, but I see it is a problem if Europe lacks the strength to properly defend countries such as the Ukraine. If Putin is, through military aggression, able to eventually gain full control of the Ukrain, I expect other "leaders" with similar dispositions will try similar actions in the future.

I imagine these days it's a little better, but it's still a bit of a magnet for the hard right in germany, for all the obvious reasons.

[0] https://ctc.usma.edu/the-insider-threat-far-right-extremism-...

PS: I think in general it's germany's ongoing far-right problem that makes nationalist-adjacent careers and institutions far less attractive to normal people, so it's sort of a vicious circle.

Ignoring the context of sending troops into war is a "shitty" move, as is characterising this kind of behaviour as being of "European people" - there have been lots of non-European empires, and colonial powers where administrated by European monarchs, not European democracies (i.e. the people).

Fighting an invading empire is not building one. These semantic games are a slippery-slope argument - structures such as NATO are pretty explicit means (in theory at least) to defending against aggression without endorsing aggression.

And while the Russian forces are actively trained as one force, European armies would have significant difficulties operating together and would lack shared leadership. Also, while some of the European forces are highly proficient, others are more at the level of militias, really only useful for defending their homelands, if that.

Without heavy US involvement, I would expect Russia to dominate a confrontation with EU forces in the early stages, by focusing on the forces of one country at a time. This is particularily true if the confrontation happens in terrain such as that of the Ukraine or Poland, where the flat land gives attacking armored forces an advantage.

With moderate US involvement, this changes a bit. Lets say the US sent an expeditionary force of 100k people, maybe half of which were fighting forces, then NATO would _perhaps_ be a match for Russia, but would probably not be superior, espeically in terms of infantry, armor and artillery.

Realistically, a defence of Nato with current forces needs to be done in depth, forcing Russia to attack into central Germany and/or the Carpathian mountains. Eventually, Russia would lose such a conflict due to massive economic inferiority, but this kind of conflict is not something European countries are willing to go into over just the Ukraine.

And after the fall of the Ukraine, I think there is no way public opinion in the EU would support continuing a war aimed at freeing them.

On the other hand, if the EU did have the strength to outmatch Russia even on Ukrainian soil, and mobilized that force as Russia mobilized for attack, I think the attack would never have come.

In other words, I think this attack comes as a result of EU countries being too weak to be able to deter Russia, while the US is currently suffering too much internal conflict to really care.

i don’t think it’s so dire here. i think putin simply realized US wouldn’t move troops or retaliate with force, weighed them political or resource gains from attacking and decided it was worth it.

In hindsight perhaps the right move was for US to station a time peacekeeping force in ukraine to make the calculus of attacking more expensive, yet i’m too ignorant of the subject to understand.

Had NATO forces been deployed in Ukraine four months ago, nobody would be making any nuclear threats today, veiled or otherwise.

In fact, there wouldn't have been an invasion to begin with. I am about 100% positive that Russian intelligence knew beyond a shadow of a doubt that they were picking a fight they could easily win. I am almost 100% positive that western intelligence knew that too, which is why its response was a bunch of bullshit about sanctions.

But that's irrelevant to the point I was making. You don't stop an invasion by sitting in a neighbouring country, and then staging a counterattack long after the target is overrun. You either stop it at the border, or not at all. Whatever complaints Russia would have raised over Ukraine inviting a NATO deployment, it would have them five times over were NATO to participate in the conflict after it started.

Practically speaking, Russia would have probably backed down. Practically speaking, the reason NATO did not exercise this option is because it doesn't want to fight a war over a non-member.

That's a given after 2014 (let's remember Ukraine gave up its nukes in 1994 in exchange for security and territorial integrity guarantees of USA, UK and Russia).

I hope this doesn't sound flippant or taking light of Russia's actions because it's not intended to be. But what is the decision process behind supporting a choice to start sending other people to kill and die for your desired outcome here?

And do you also believe wars should be initiated against China to liberate Uyghur and Tibet, against North Korea to stop the human rights abuses there, against Afghanistan again to put the previous regime back in power, etc.?

I mean what point do you say okay we need to go in shooting, and would you still believe that if you were to be the first on the beach with a rifle?

I don't want to die or kill so the suits on the top can then negotiate new post war order, which would almost certainly perpetuate this BS in the future.

On the other hand: appeasement leads to more bullying, and might cause even bigger conflict on the future (we've seen this happen in WW2)

You've got to draw the line somewhere. If an offensive war like this passes, no-one is safe.

> And do you also believe wars should be initiated against China to liberate Uyghur and Tibet, against North Korea to stop the human rights abuses there, against Afghanistan again to put the previous regime back in power, etc.?

Launching an invasion no, at least not without a very clear UN-like process that gives them multiple opportunities to back down.

> I mean what point do you say okay we need to go in shooting, and would you still believe that if you were to be the first on the beach with a rifle?

Whether I'd have the balls is another question entirely, but I absolutely do believe it. This is not subtle, this is not limited, this is war. If we were talking about unmarked "volunteers" in the "independent states" that Russia recognised a few days ago, you might reasonably argue for a more limited response. But when we have Russian regulars shooting in Kyiv, that is absolutely on the wrong side of anywhere the line can possibly be drawn, unless you're ready to start speaking Russian.

This is not the same situation though so I don't think it would be responsible to just say Putin is like Hitler and this is like the invasion of Poland therefore I will send other people to fight a war with some unspecified goal, and just leave it at that.

I'm not saying your opinion is wrong or you haven't thought more deeply about it, perhaps you don't have time or interest in giving a more lengthy answer.

Also, HN doesn't like long discussions with its irritating "commenting too fast" filter, so I'll answer the comment below - good point about Czechoslovakia and Austria. That already could be seen as a sign of what's to come, but the more it escalated, the stronger it should have been apparent.

Do you think this is more similar to Crimea 2014 or Poland 1939, for example? Or maybe you think Crimea 2014 was the same as Poland as well?

Well there's clearly huge differences then aren't there?

> Or to put it differently, he'll take as long as he can. So the question you should be asking, will he stop with Ukraine if he'll take it?

I think I should be asking a lot of questions, that one included of course. And I'm not sure or even sure he would risk getting involved in a significant war in Western Ukraine. At this point "power maniac who must be stopped" doesn't sway me enough that I should ask someone else to send their son to die.

If we are concerned with power maniacs, should we start with China? Will they stop at Tibet and the Uyghurs and Hong Kong? Should we take the CCP regime down before they take Taiwan? That is actually stated goal of the party after all. North Korea? Saudi?

I mean if the concern is occupations, mad dictators, human rights or whatever, we have a lot of wars we could start. Why just limit ourselves to Ukraine?

That's why I don't find that emotional argument convincing (coming from the ruling class, at least). They're sometimes concerned with dictators, except when they aren't. In those other cases sometimes they ignore them and sometimes they actually support them. Sometimes they were the ones who installed them in the first place.

And your arguments could be applied to World War II as well, so they don't sound stronger in this case, than in that one.

Okay. I would be interested in hearing why it's different from other similar regimes but if you don't want to explain that's okay.

> And your arguments could be applied to World War II as well.

Some could in some ways that's true. But I don't think it's similar and I don't think all of them apply in equal ways.

Western Europe was petrified of Germany in the 30s and considered it a very high risk of wide scale invasion and wars though, which is why they doubled or tripled their military expenditure and had massive build ups of fortifications and forces during the 30s.

There's simply been no such sense of that kind of risk with Russia in the past few decades even up to today. I share that view that the real risk is not high. And Russia doesn't use most budget on the army, there is just no such indication of that kind of build up as Germany had.

So far it's a regime which is not very nice and has locally expansionist ambitions. Which is a lot like China. You have preferred so far not to answer whether you think we should go to war against China before they could roll through Taiwan since occupying Tibet, but I think that's a much better parallel than 1930s Germany.

Which regimes? Can you list some cases where fascistic regime with most of its budget used on the army and power hungry maniac running it was appeased and it worked well?

NK is not really expansionist but China is. So China. Who also spend 4-5x what Russia does in absolute. And I don't say it worked well to appease them.

I'm wondering what the difference is. Some pro-war people are drawing "lines" but it's not really clear to me exactly what those lines are. Beyond WWII and Nazis, which is not a reasonable analysis and seems more like a typical cheap appeal to emotion.

> In 2019, revenues are planned to reach 15.555 trillion and expenditures will amount to 16.374 trillion, whereas the deficit will stand at 0.8 percent of GDP. By 2020, revenues are estimated at 16.285 trillion with expenditures at 17.155 trillion

And

> In contrast, military spending rose from 2 trillion, 141 billion in 2013 to 3.775 trillion in 2016. In 2017 it fell to 2.778 trillion, and it will decline further in 2018 to 2.771 trillion, but will grow again afterward, to 2.808 trillion in 2020. It should be borne in mind that the actual military spending in Russia is much higher than the planned figures. Traditionally, additional budget revenues, if any, are allocated to this sector. Moreover, some military expenditures are concealed under other civilian items, primarily under the “national economy.” Police spending rose from 1 trillion, 487 billion in 2013 to 1.898 trillion in 2016, 1.977 trillion in 2017, 2.108 trillion in 2018, and 2.140 trillion in 2020. The share of concealed budget expenditures in 2013 amounted to 13.8 percent of the total expenditure and increased to 18.6 percent in 2017, with a planned increase to 20.1 percent of the budget in 2020. These are absolutely bizarre figures that cannot withstand any comparison with the secret parts of budgets in developed economies. At the same time, a significant proportion of the “secret expenses” most likely does not go to military purposes but simply remains in someone’s pocket.

So expenditures are around 17, and official military budget is 2.7-3.7. There are "secret" expenditures of up to 3.4 of which they don't all go to the military but if they did we would be at 7.1. 41% of federal budget revenue to the military.

Let's see your figures that show it over 50.

> But further discussion about it is pointless and will be going in circles.

I absolutely could be wrong, but I'm not arguing in bad faith here I'm using the sources I can find so you don't need to go off in a huff. And it's not really going in circles because you've refused to answer all my questions about China or acknowledged that the military build up in Europe is not remotely like it was in the 1930s. It's more like it's hit a brick wall than gone in a circle.

EDIT: Either way I find it's pretty arbitrary to be so worried about the exact amount of military expenditure. Would a regime that spent 30% of its budget be better than one that spent 40%? What if the absolute numbers were higher? What if the government raised taxes and other expenditures to reduce the proportion of military spending below the magic 50%? What about as a proportion to GDP? I really don't see why that should make a significant consideration about whether we would go to war with a country. So perhaps you are right and it is pointless to talk to you about this.

That's the main point. And as if you they'll tell you real numbers.

Either way, no need in all this demagoguery. I already explained the basic idea - Putin will stop only when stopped and none of the above is really relevant to that.

Where are your numbers you so confidently stated that I was wrong with? Let's see them.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War_II#War_breaks_out_in...

Parallels with Ukraine and no one helping it directly thinking the problem will stop there are pretty obvious.

I'm surprised that everyone considers sanctions a sophisticated hard soft power tool (clearly useless) but don't consider mobilization of troops as hardware (short of firing rounds) as an effective and peaceful tool.

What Putin did (mobilize troops within their borders) was also an option for NATO/EU in bordering countries. Matching mobilization would definitely increase the costs of firing the first bullet.

But the truth is, despite the talk of solidarity and all this public indignation, Ukraine never really had a partner in NATO/EU/West.

And the world saw how uninterested in peace is NATO/EU/West

I would be interested to hear from anybody from Ukraine to USA to Russia.

No right or wrong answers, I'm just interested in perspective.

For myself since I'm asking the question: I'm in a western country and I don't support sending my countrymen to war. For a number of reasons, primarily I don't think the western neoliberal ruling regime (not talking about one political party or another, but the non-partisan support for wars and interventions by many western governments for many decades) can be trusted with war or interventionism. It has almost always been sold on utter lies and deceit, and almost never turned out for the better of the people involved.

It is sold to us on emotion and outrage and urgency and this kind of thing, but very little calm rational and considered arguments and debate of pros and cons and risks and goals ("Putin is like Hitler and must be stopped" type of rhetoric really does not describe a goal of aim of a military action adequately) . Now I have no doubt there are many very good arguments for the people of Ukraine, the country of Ukraine, the containment of bullies and dictatorships, etc., that could help make the case for military action in this case. However I also know that the ruling class have absolutely no interest in the actual well being of the Ukrainian people or the security of the average person in Europe, or a moral duty to stand up to bullies and dictators, or human rights. Because if they did we couldn't explain their actions and inactions with Saudi, Yemen, North Korea, whatever. They are happy to claim they care about those things if by coincidence they might be seen to align with their agenda, but we know they don't care.

So we know the warmongers are lying right off the bat, this is not really disputable. This doesn't make the case for war wrong, but it does (to me) make it much harder to see what is going on, and I think caution should be applied in such cases. But I do acknowledge the problem with appeasement and the need for decisive action and the fact that we will never have all the information so again this is not a criticism of others who feel differently.

What I would look at for example is Crimea, which of course fell to Russia in a similar way during the Obama administration in which there was also some people calling for war.

If there was a major war over Crimea back then, would the situation for Crimea, its people, Ukraine, and everybody else involved with the war be better today than it is now? If Crimea was occupied by Russian forces would it have meant civilian collateral deaths? If many people in Crimea were pro-Russian separatists, would that war have meant bombing the people of Crimea? And what would the end game be? Would we still be there? How many people would be dead? Would it war there have dissuaded Russia from this action? What are the similarities with the regions of Ukraine being occupied now? I have seen almost no analysis of this with hindsight, I'm sure such analysis exists, but it is a concern to me that the warmongers have not taken it and made it front-and-center of the discussion. It would be a very good data point for justification of any action now.

Finally I would not support war unless a significant number of Ukrainians particularly from the region take up arms against Russia and start fighting. They are the ones who have the ultimate moral authority about whether force should be used to protect their land, and they have the first responsibility to fight for it. Sounds cruel and it is, but crueler in my opinion is to first send people who have no relationship to the place to fight.

EDIT: and when I say warmongers I don't mean people who are pro war in any situation, I believe war is sometimes justified. I was purely talking about those in the ruling class who are warmongers.

That is not a high risk, but becomes a real possibility. Rather than insane rambling and pure fiction. Or something appearing to be a dark pessimism.

This is not situation that I like.

So, in the end

- (1) I may not have option to choose

- (2) I would prefer to fight Russians in Estonia (Baltic countries are likely the next target) than in my own country

> would you still believe that if you were to be the first on the beach with a rifle?

I am not going to pretend that I know how I will behave in situation that is extremely beyond what ever happened to me.

There's more than one parallel with the Third Reich efforts here.

Or maybe instead of sweeping up through NATO he decides owning the worlds oil would be nice and starts cutting down to the Middle East.

Well, do you think that? My question was for you but it's fair I answer yours.

> you may want to stop him early.

What "you" is that? The people of those countries that would be invaded along the way?

If I thought that and was a person from one of those other countries, I would probably think it's preferable to build defenses of my country rather than engage in expeditionary warfare in the east near Russian supply lines and air space. Difficult question though I'm certainly no military strategist.

On the first question, I do not think Putin's next stop is likely to be that or possibly even the regions of Ukraine where there are fewer Russians/less pro-Russian support. But such things should always be considered and I'm no military or geopolitical analyst. What I can see is that from the amount of money western european states spend on their defenses they do not consider such a risk likely either, and they do employ many such strategists. So as a person not from one of those countries I certainly wouldn't support my country getting involved in military action in the region first.

The "you" was, well, everyone in the world. I don't really subscribe to the strange belief that I should only care about human suffering of my countrymen. However, if you do, the bigger the war gets, the worse it will be and the more far afield it will bring in other countries.

As far as "far from Russia's supply lines", their old border won't matter, they'll still be close to their bases in what was once Ukraine. Oh, and they'll have more resources from Ukraine. Plus, you won't have the 7th largest army in the world absorbing the brunt of their attack.

So far they seem to have occupied heavily pro-Russian areas very close to home that have not put up much resistance. I don't think that's a good indication they would just keep going further. Possibly though.

> but my belief is he will keep salami slicing until war is joined because he crosses some line that people stand up to him. Better to do it cheaper.

> The "you" was, well, everyone in the world. I don't really subscribe to the strange belief that I should only care about human suffering of my countrymen. However, if you do, the bigger the war gets, the worse it will be and the more far afield it will bring in other countries.

That is not my belief. It is my belief that I care about my countrymen more though or at least have more responsibility to them being that I have a vote in how the country is run, and it is also my belief that those with something to lose have to take a stand. I wouldn't want to send solders from my country even if Putin was driving a tank down the Champs-Elysees, if the French were all just sitting there waiting for me.

And pretty clearly Western European governments do not consider this a high risk given their military spending. So I just think it's very premature to take action based on the idea you can be so sure such a thing would happen.

> As far as "far from Russia's supply lines", their old border won't matter, they'll still be close to their bases in what was once Ukraine. Oh, and they'll have more resources from Ukraine. Plus, you won't have the 7th largest army in the world absorbing the brunt of their attack.

It would absolutely stretch supply lines and defenses. Reality isn't like an RTS you can't just keep conquering territory and it turns red and your resources immediately grow.

Since you wrote your comment, Putin has starting acting bellicose to Finland. No where near attacking - yet. But it certainly doesn't make "he's only going to nip a little and then stop forever" seem likely.

It's one thing to condemn Putin's actions but quite another to demonize immigrants.

Assassinations on foreign soil including attempt on opposition leader who now rots in a jail on rediculous charges. Shooting down passenger planes. Putin needs a punch in the face that rattles him to the core such that he fears stepping outside in daylight.

Escalating a conflict to using deadly force can be a necessary step to prevent tyrannical dictators, but it often has very steep short term costs to everyone innocent stuck in the middle. I personally am in favor of intervention at this point, but it isn't something to be considered lightly.

The United Kingdom didn't wanted to be part of it, thou.

Ironically, I think that more countries intervention would have make the Spanish war bloodier but it could have stopped World War II.

The Spanish Civil War was definitely a component of WW2 but I don't see how it being resolved could possibly impact WW2 happening - if the Allies won the Spanish Civil war it's pretty unlikely they'd reinstate the democratically elected government anyways due to the red scare - you'd likely have a democratic-ish puppet government.

Fascism was also present next-door in Portugal (Salazar) and it didn't really have much impact at all on WW2.

In the Spanish civil war the other side was also bombing cities like Oviedo and killing civilians for a much longer time and killing way more people than Guernica.

You are confusing things there, the revolt in Spain had nothing to do with Italians and Germans at first. It was a local war that unfortunately for Spain became the test for the new world war.

The other side were not supported by Hitler, but they were supported by Stalin. And they established Chekas in Spain being way more terrible than Franco.

With Paracuellos massacres, the neutral observers were intercepted in air, following Stalin orders.

During the war the flow of people changing sides were unanimously from "republicans" side to "nationals" side, because of the red terror and incompetency, just like with the Iron Curtain, few people went the other way.

>Ironically, I think that more countries intervention would have make the Spanish war bloodier but it could have stopped World War II.

Absolutely non sense. Poland was invaded by BOTH Germany and Russia at the same time because they were allies. Lenin and later Stalin created such a miserable regime with communism that they planned to invade Europe to sustain Russia economy from the start.

That was called "financing the economy through imperialistic practices, just like any other European country in the past".

Are there any examples where waiting and intervening at a later point in time turned out better?

Edit: Only sort of though. Because look where we are…

In 2018 during the course of a defensive action, the U.S. military massacred quite a few Russians.[0][1]

Play stupid games, win stupid prizes. Yeah, there's much more care and hesitation involved when the consequences are full-scale war, but nonetheless you'd better believe NATO would respond strong, including taking MAD right up to the line. It was Nixon and Kissinger after all, that invented Madman theory.

You bring up a good point, though: what if Putin suffers a conventional military defeat and has a break from reality, ordering launches? What then? I'm afraid the best we can hope for there is hesitation from their strategic rocket forces to carry out the order.

[0] https://www.nytimes.com/2018/05/24/world/middleeast/american...

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Khasham#Unofficial_R...

[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Madman_theory

Mercenaries don’t really count.

What's the line, then? It's clearly not "no military action at all" as we're told right now. Maybe drive a few SAM setups over the border from Poland and take shots?

Like, this very moment, there are tons of NATO ISR assets in the air monitoring Russian movements and very likely relaying that information straight to Ukraine.

You missed my point a little bit. Of course mercenaries count when invading, but they don't count when you terminate them. Because you're shooting at mercenaries, not the Russian Army.

It takes no political or diplomatic capital at all to brand Russian mercenaries "enemy combatants" and then to promptly terminate them. It would be a little bit different if it were actual Russian soldiers.

Yes Prime Minister: Salami Tactics.

I'm not sure our leaders know what the actual "line" is because there isn't one. Will America MAD to save Europe? I do think it's possible that full-on WW3 engagement with non-nuclear forces could be possible with MAD serving to deter mutual usage and perhaps deter invasion of Russian/American mainland. That's wild speculation though. I base it primarily on the assumption that neither side wants MAD and will act to avoid it. The line for nuclear engagement (as opposed to chest-beating) reduces all the way back to a line drawn around the vital cities/industry/nuclear force deployments of a given country. Everything else might possibly be given up to avoid MAD which is an end-state. Maybe a game theorist can chime in.

The respective countries as a whole, yes. But individual actors in the war will still be driven to the brink, so you also need to count on countries not retaliating when a stray nuke detonates in their territory.

Russland parking panzers in the border with Polen is a very different story.

When you understand how the Russian air defense is structured (via overlapping dense ground to air missile batteries, and rapidly scrambled fighters that can operate from rough airfields), the difference is even more stark.

When you get to the endgame it's even more problematic. The reason we weren't hopping to get Ukraine into the Eurozone, let along NATO, is because it's a terribly poor and corrupt country that we (i.e. the West) weren't ready to take on yet. The idea was always to let these countries grow and evolve into a more lawful-and-liberal model. Russia is trying to arrest that, for reasons that are understandable, messed-up, and simply outright terrible. It's an understatement that this is a human tragedy.

If NATO does not respond with force, or escalate and withdraws because of MAD, then it loses all credibility.

The question is: Can belligerent nuclear armed nations really hold the rest of the world hostage? At some point, it's unacceptable, and we would all pay the consequences.

since he is a psychopath (Machiavellian, more precisely)

There's a very reasonable argument that NATO could tomorrow announce they're intervening in Ukraine to protect it's sovereignty, operations will be limited to Ukranian territory, and that any attempt to strike out will be met "unescapable retaliation"...and maybe NATO and Russia then have a shooting conventional war in the Ukraine and it stays there.

The reason everyone's trying to avoid that is because the tick-tock of escalation depends on the other side correctly reading the situation and the fog of war. NATO countries are activating units on their borders right now near Ukraine because there's a very real risk of a Russian platoon will get lost, invade a town which is actually in a NATO country, and then you've got to deal with that - and it's probably better the question not get asked because once the shooting starts it's very hard to get it to stop (i.e. suppose our out of position Russian unit calls in artillery, so NATO drops air strikes on the position inside Ukraine, so now the news going up the chain on both sides is "the other side is coming across the border!")

Limiting Russia's ambitions doesn't make this kind of thing less of a crime. Our commitment to self-determination and anti-colonialism that we inherited from those who fought WWII shouldn't waiver. However, we should be cautious to discuss everything in the existentialist terms of WWII. America's last 70 years of war making should teach us that if anything. There is no shortcut to moral clarity in foreign affairs. Unfortunately you can't achieve justification of violence without letting the belligerents show themselves prove its necessity.

Ukraine should have made use of the material from the Chernobyl power plant while it had the chance. A threat of dirty bomb being delivered to Moscow would have stopped Putin. I guess their politicians are too naive and didn't consider this an option. Facing an overwhelming military power you need to improvise. Certainly Putin thought of this option hence he took the control ot the Chernobyl.

Unless you find some way to simultaneously take out all nuclear installations in the world, or prevent their misiles from impacting your territory, this seems extremely hard.

Anyway, a retaliation strike from the USA would wipe out enough of Russia to end the war in a draw, if we can say so. They only have to remind Putin the common wisdom from all those years of cold war, if any of us attacks we are all toast.

Also, wasn't there some revelation, after the cold war ended, that Russia had known American nuclear codes or positions all along? That would certainly give them some advantage.

That's not 'victory' by anyone's definition. Also there are plenty of areas noone is targeting - remote Pacific islands, rural Australia, etc. Theybare going to be much better than a bunker.

Of course that's what they'd want the world to believe, right?

No, it didn't; their numerical advantage in main battle tanks over the #2 is, by ratio, much greater than their advantage in nuclear warheads.

The reason Chernobyl was taken is obvious if you look at a map. It's on the border, and there's a massive offensive across the entirety of it.

It's not a target, it's simply on the way to a target.

It needs 24/7 maintenance.

Do nothing and it melts down and destroyers the globe.

The whole globe? Gonna need a citation for that. It won't be fun for Europe or Russia if it melts down, but destroy the whole globe seems a little hyperbolic.

Here is a report from the International Atomic Energy Agency:

https://www-pub.iaea.org/iaeameetings/IEM4/29Jan/Voitsekhovy...

(Poor english but good diagrams)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_meltdown#China_syndrom...

I think at some point people will realize that MAD is a huge bluff. Because when you see the nuclear bombs flying, there is nothing you can do anymore to win the war. The only thing that you can do is to prevent the loss of more lives by standing down and calling off the counter attack. The only logical move is to renege on your "credible" second strike promise, stand down, and start printing the enemy's flags. In practice, modern warfare is not about conquering the enemy country, it is about destroying the enemy military and state, which would be achived by airstrikes and/or a nuclear strike. For these reasons, I predict the boundary between conventional war and nuclear war to become more blurry (US and Russia have been trying this for decades with the development of smaller nukes, and missile defense systems), and conventional war to return to Europe.

The way to stop this is not in strengthening the NATO and going black to block confrontation. The only way forward is to question block confrontation, the post-WWII-order, and souvereign nation states. Because the nation states are the entities that are fighting for influence and raising armies, and in some sense they have to, if they don't want to be left behind in geopolitics and the global economy. I know it's a tall order, but we need no less than a "revolution" of the world order (however that may look like) to secure peace.

He wants to take it, and he can threaten and get away with it because the West won't react.

If the US 'gave' the Ukranians some drones and guided missiles and then 'fired' said missiles for the Ukrainians at Russian forces in Ukraine, at the bhest of Ukraine, what's he going to do?

Start lobbing nukes?

In fact, the Nuke/MAD part is what makes it maybe safer to react. As long as the US isn't invading anything it's hard to see what he could justify doing.

If he did a nuclear test, as a 'scary demonstration' - he would then lose the world's support. Even China would balk. He would be firmly nuts.

Russians out in the open, not in their own country with defences are easy targets. The US could do 'generational' damage to Russian forces in literally just a few days.

The US/West should probably be doing everything the can do short of invading.

NATO doesn't have the guts, it would have to be an American President.

Trump has the 'gall' but he's not a military person and a loose cannon. Biden is far to effete. I think possibly GW Bush II surrounded by neocons, would have done something, and so would his father who ejected Saddam from Kuwait and then sat back.

That's exactly what he just threatened to do.

Putin is not stupid, he is stronger than Ukraine, but weaker than NATO.

There would be an embargo, they'd be encircled, their economy would shut down, Putin would be brought to some kind of trial and Russia would be denuclaraized.

I found this thread on twitter helpful for explaining this issue with MAD

https://twitter.com/ProfTalmadge/status/1496837475901362180

Fortunately the bet in that regards is that Putin's own military and associates would depose him almost immediately - intentional nuclear weapons usage changes the calculus on a lot of things, since you're now into "you, your family and your country will definitely die if he stays in charge". The Russian people aren't behind this war.

If they area actually threatening you with assured destruction (mutual or unilateral), and they aren't bluffing, they cannot while you value the existence of your own civilization.

That's what assured destruction means.

Your analysis seems rational in this moment. But: the policy and personality of a democracy is liable change rapidly and radically in a way no single actor ever would or could. Autocrats often do not understand this, and make the same assumptions you have.

The scenario you describe would raise such apocalyptic outrage in America and Europe that war without thought of consequence would likely ensue.

You simply cannot extrapolate future behavior of complex democracies from current behavior as you would an individual. The concern you laid out in your post is relevant: once enough citizens arrive at a similar opinion, policy can rapidly shift.

This is not a guarantee of independence, but nothing ever is that's not a property of MAD. Every civilization including Ukraine is there because they conquered previous people or regimes. You have to at least fight though before you expect anybody else to fight for you.

Afghanistan did it. Against Russia and against USA. With help of course from other interested parties like Pakistan and USA etc but for the most part it wasn't them doing the fighting and dying. If Poland, Germany, and France allowed Russian tanks to drive to the Atlantic without firing a shot then maybe they would.

It's also worth keeping this in some historical perspective. This war could break a long streak of zero great power wars (depending on definitions and reactions in the west), it's true. But the rate is still historically extremely low. The systems we have for peace, however imperfect, are definitely working.

I agree that it feels unlikely for NATO to draw a red line and start mobilizing troops, matériel, and missiles to reflect a posture. Everything at this point in to the invasion is meant as deterrence. This simply isn’t enough to combat the playground bully. I’ll stop here and just say that in international relations, game theory can be employed to understand this dynamic of brinksmanship. In the worst case of asymmetrical information, lack of communication, and paranoia about the madman leading the opposing side, all out war can be conceived of — even if it’s ultimately called off. Think Cuban Missile Crisis.

1-https://www.theguardian.com/business/2022/feb/24/russian-cen...

In my view NATO has to absolutely step up and send forces en masse to Poland at the very least. Appeasing bullies never ends well.

There isn't much response presently from NATO because Ukraine isn't part of it.

When he did this 7 years ago, that is _precisely_ what we did. The UN got everyone together and issued a non-binding resolution on the matter then essentially did nothing else significant.

https://wikipedia.org/wiki/Strategic_Defense_Initiative

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o861Ka9TtT4&t=73s

Wanna know when the escalation starts? When russia runs into proxy US bases in the eeastern blocks.

The west is a dysfunctional mess. The handling of Wall St/inequality/mindless consumption, FAANG, MIL complex debacles, a news media that drains much more energy than it generates, low quality obama/trump/musk celeb type leaders all show the solutions wont come from such a space.

Speaking of bloody nose reminds me of boxing. You get hit and you hit back or your opponent won't respect you. You will fear opponent, they will sense it and capitalize.

1. https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=w3H_xsdr-Vs

Don't ask others to go to war, go yourself.

So from our point of view it's a European problem. A quick reminder - they have 500M people and a GDP comparable to ours. With so many resources and 20+ peaceful years they should be able to field dozens of panzer divisions. Do you see any? The Ukrainians are fighting like their life depends on it. You can see it. The Snake Island martyrs alone is a tale for the ages. And Ukraine is a small and poor country. Do you see other Europeans even trying? And if not, is it really existential? And if not for them why should we care?

The Russian despot increasingly looks like a statesman in touch with reality. It's a real puzzle how he managed to pull if off lacking diversity and not having enough girls in his spetsnaz units. America spent 20 years in the sandbox wasting precious resources for no particular reason. Having run from Afghanistan the way Americans did we'll be lucky the Chinese don't grab Taiwan next month.

As a side note, the loss of DJT is a gift that just keeps giving. Elections have consequences. Going back to at least 2008.

At face value? like how they promised to not invade Ukraine in exchange for their nukes?

> Not to turn their sons into homosexuals

What?!?

> Do you see other Europeans even trying?

Putin has threatened retaliation against any intervention, including the threat of nukes - "even trying" isn't an option, once you're in you may be all in.