> If the US can invade the middle east and not be called an authoritarian regime...

First, I wouldn't call this authoritarian[1] but imperialistic[2].

But semantics aside, I don't really get that line of argument. Do you think the US invading parts of the middle east was justified? If you do not, how can this comparison be used to justify Russia's invasion of Ukraine?

I do condemn both invasions!

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

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

> I do condemn both invasions!

So does many Americans politicians. Indeed a vocal minority opposed the US invasion at the time (they weren't prosecuted).

IMO, the way the US negotiates and works with allies makes these wars incomparable.

Ah, thankyou. I was struggling to find the right word.

> But semantics aside, I don't really get that line of argument. Do you think the US invading parts of the middle east was justified? If you do not, how can this comparison be used to justify Russia's invasion of Ukraine?

Both invasions were horrific. But the response to the US invasion of central Asia by other Asian powers was "eh, what can you do?". I don't see why the Russian invasion of Ukraine needs to be treated so differently, pouring in weapons, levelling sanctions, triggering various crisises, increasingly aggressive rhetoric and so forth. If Asia can get invaded and we all take it in stride, Europe can get invaded and we can admit the idea that we could again take it in stride. These people aren't so different from each other.

The response should be a lot more thoughtful. More people need to acknowledge that in all likelihood that Russia is acting deliberately in response to long-term pressure and not because Putin is a special evil.

Who is the "we" that should be negotiating? The US, EU, and NATO aren't parties to the conflict. Russia and Ukraine are free to negotiate at any time, and in fact have already held talks at several points during the conflict.

I assume thought, that you favor some sort of negotiated settlement. How much territory should Ukraine cede to Russia in exchange for peace? And what would prevent Russia from coming back and taking another slice in a few years? Remember they already did this once before in 2014.

It's also hard to negotiate when Russia said there'd be no invasion, like the day before they crossed the border.

What credibility is left?

While I disagree with your other comments, I totally agree with denuclearization. Expanding NATO (founded on nuclear deterrence paradigm) as a reaction to Russia is wrong.

As we can clearly see now, NATO does not need nuclear deterrence again Russia's conventional weapons.

What protects, for example, the Baltic countries is not the threat that the US might take initiative to drop a nuclear bomb on Russia, no it is the vast conventional capabilities of the US.

Just supplying a relatively small amount of weapons to Ukraine is enough to destroy most of the Russian army.

Based on Russian performance at the start of the invasion, a similar force would have overrun the Baltic states. Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania are small and geographically isolated. They are surrounded by Russia, Belarus, and the Baltic Sea. Any attempt to support and supply them would have to go through the small gap between Kaliningrad and Belarus, or over the Baltic Sea, which would be heavily contested.

The geographic situation largely explains why the Baltic States support the NATO membership of Sweden and Finland so strongly, and why Russia is opposed to it. With Sweden and Finland in NATO, the Baltic Sea will become NATO's internal sea. NATO would likely have naval and air superiority over it, which would keep supply lines open and give them a chance to defend the Baltic States with conventional weapons.

Wouldn't any Russian force driving around in the Baltic states be easy targets for NATO cruise missiles and air power?

None of which NATO countries has offered to use in Ukraine.

I think logistics by railway would be problematic if NATO allies launched a few thousand cruise missiles.

That's the benefit of Sweden and Finland joining NATO.

Air power is of little use if your forces don't have access to the relevant area. The Baltic states are surrounded by Russian bases and air defenses, while NATO bases are far away. Right now, Kaliningrad is effectively a fortress that separates the Baltic states from the rest of NATO. Sweden and Finland give NATO air forces the option to bypass Kaliningrad and operate from bases that are closer to the Baltic states.

There was already Norway, Denmark and Poland fairly close by (close in terms of air travel).

But yes, Sweden and Finland in NATO is nice. Also for the fact that NATO not intervening in aggression against Sweden or Finland is hard to imagine, so getting papers on the marriage is nice for all parties involved.

The idea is that if Sweden and Finland are not members of NATO, their airspace would be closed to NATO air forces in a NATO–Russia conflict. Then the only way to reach Baltic airspace would be flying past Kaliningrad.

Also, as far as I understand, the combat radius fighter jets is quite short. It's something like 500 to 1200 km, depending on aircraft type and weapons load. Having bases 100 or 200 km closer is already a significant advantage.

The fighter jets can refuel during flight, which is a routine operation.

Tankers won't help here. The problem is that NATO fighters would effectively have to fly over Russia before they can reach the Baltic states. The area where tankers can operate safely already has plenty of NATO airbases.

If NATO doesn't need nuclear weapons, one more reason to get rid of them. The truth is number of states that endorse nuclear weapons expands as NATO expands, and I see that as a security risk.

The poster you've replied to said

>NATO does not need nuclear deterrence again Russia's conventional weapons

NATO has more than enough capabilities to destroy Russia's conventional weaponry, but as Russia has nuclear weapons, NATO must also have them to keep parity.

Getting rid of nuclear weapons is impossible. Genie's out of the bottle.

> Getting rid of nuclear weapons is impossible.

I disagree. Progress is being made (see ICANW), despite setbacks, some unfortunately coming from "the West", which is supposed to be morally more advanced.

And NATO doesn't need to keep parity with Russia, what for?

I also consider nuclear retaliation strike to be morally dubious. What's the point?

> I also consider nuclear retaliation strike to be morally dubious. What's the point?

The point isn't that you win something with a second strike. The point is that second strike capability ensures no actor can make a first strike without risking consequence. It's about deterrent, not about winning.

NATO does have to at least keep parity with Russia. Russia is the number one threat in the region, and NATO was made specifically for this purpose. Without adequate weapons to ensure peace, there would be no point of the alliance.

Nuclear weapons are necessary as a deterrent. In this case from an adversary that has nuclear weapons - without those in stock NATO would be outmatched and vulnerable to being subject to the threat of using them.

At the end of the day, states with nuclear weapons get to push non-nuclear states around. Good luck getting Russia, China, Israel, India, Pakistan or North Korea to disarm.

Getting the West to abandon their nuclear weapons would be morally reprehensible as those states would become subjects to the states that did not.

It's a nice dream, but:

1. It won't happen.

2. Nuclear weapons I believe are the most important reason why we did not have a conventional war in Europe for 80 years. Russia would not attack an adversary that was nuclear armed or in a nuclear sharing program.

I do not agree with your cynicism. You just made an opposite argument - that NATO doesn't really need nuclear weapons to defend against Russia.

I think, if NATO countries (and the U.S.) wanted to, they could make lot more effort to denuclearize. I don't think NATO can institutionally do it, though (it wasn't designed for it). For example, they could propose more aggressive mutual disarmament treaties, that would decrease arsenal in certain proportions on a timeline, with inspections. They don't do that, so I conclude that they don't really want to.

As for the peace - plenty of countries in Europe that are not involved in nuclear weapons and yet enjoy peace. As you said - nuclear countries bully the non-nuclear ones around, therefore, effort should be made to get rid of them completely.

>The borders of the USSR have retreated over most of our lifetime, Moscow controlled all of Ukraine as recently as 1990 and gave it up more-or-less voluntarily.

The problem is you think they "own" them.

>If the US can invade the middle east

One nation they invaded was Iraq, and while catastrophic, they've created a democracy that later told US to fuck off: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S.%E2%80%93Iraq_Status_of_Fo...

You can very much argue against that, and I'd agree, but it's not comparable to colonial war of aggression to literally enslave and genocide free nation.

>I don't think we need to draw a red line at the Ukraine border against the other nuclear superpower.

They are far from anything super, as we've seen in Kharkiv Oblast last week.