Because you don’t know it’s not nuclear tipped until it lands. A nuclear-capable missile streaking West out of Russia looks identical to a first strike on early warning radars.
Whoever thought it was a good idea to try and turn Iraq 2 into WW3 really should be relieved of their power to make decisions. Russia was behaving well within international norms established by the US's actions until the west got involved in Ukraine. Now we've seen orders of magnitude more casualties for nothing, and the risk of nuclear war are off the hitherto plotted charts.
Or consolidate. Or negotiate. Also, you’re collapsing surrender into zero dimensions when in reality it’s multidimensional. Nobody expects unconditional surrender, for example.
Putin is playing a stupid game. Play stupid games win stupid prizes. If Putin gets territory out of this, however, it wasn’t a stupid game. Invading and annexing countries by force is back in play and the post-WWII consensus, including the international rules of war, are renegotiable. If that’s true, I’d say America should pick up some Pacific islands.
In reality? Publicly announce the U.S. will not honour Article V if Russia leaves un-annexed portions of Ukraine. Basically, America de facto leaves NATO and Russia leaves most of Ukraine. In exchange, Russia joins America against China and brings Pyongyang with them. (Also sanctions relief. Maybe also have Russia leave OPEC+.)
If Trump weren't President, the concessions would be sanctions relief, recognition of Russia's pre-2022 claims on Ukrainian territory (subject to plebescite and compensation to Kyiv) and a treaty guarantee Ukraine wouldn't be admitted into NATO.
When did the US make that offer? I missed it.
You asked "what concessions do you see the US making in a negotiation?" Not what concessions has the U.S. made.
Russia isn't negotiating. Only fools negotiate against themselves.
This kinda goes to my main point. If the US was willing to do anything even a little bit like that at all, this could all have probably been avoided. You're suggesting a sane offer - I too think a sane offer would allow things to wind down fairly quickly. The issue is that after 3 years of war it is clear that the US is not willing to make a deal like that.
Trump might be able to change that, I hope he can, but the odds seem stacked against him. He is in a key position buy doesn't have that much negotiating power; what you're suggesting looks to me like an unconditional US fold. Trump'd quite possibly end up in a lot of trouble. And there is no way it has been an option open to the Russians for the last 3 years.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vladimir_Putin%27s_December_20...
Than what? I gave two scenarios.
The requirements "that NATO deploy no forces or weapons in countries that joined the alliance after May 1997," "any NATO military activity in Ukraine, Eastern Europe, the Caucasus, or Central Asia" and "a requirement that both side's nuclear weapons only be deployed on national territory" are non-starters across the board.
They're the equivalent of requiring Russia withdraw entirely from Africa and the Middle East and stop selling weapons to India.
I don't understand how you can suggest "America de facto leaves NATO" as an option but also commit to NATO military activity in Ukraine, Eastern Europe, the Caucasus. If the US de-facto is out of NATO it has no business in any of those places. Unless you mean de-facto the US stays in NATO and de-jure leaves it as some sort of fake concession.
And requiring that everyone keeps nuclear missile deployments on their own territory is just common sense. We shouldn't need Russia to ask for the US to agree to that, everyone should start from that point. Forget a Russian ultimatum, the US should be doing that if it isn't already. If that is an unacceptable point I condemn the US for it and their pigheadedness, although I assume it is actually acceptable.
> don't understand how you can suggest "America de facto leaves NATO" as an option but also commit to NATO military activity in Ukraine, Eastern Europe, the Caucasus
I didn’t.
Hypothetical versus reality. Normative versus positive.
> requiring that everyone keeps nuclear missile deployments on their own territory is just common sense
This is the sort of nonsense that gives countries like China and Russia the upper hand. Armchair generals in the voting public forgetting about SLBMs. Or the fact that Russia invaded Europe the last time it didn’t have a nuclear umbrella.
> I didn’t.
This on the other hand is. So what concessions do you think the US is willing to make if Moscow negotiates? Because the last time I asked I got a "In reality? Publicly announce the U.S. will not honour Article V if Russia leaves un-annexed portions of Ukraine". And there is no way that that is something the US is going to offer, since that is more than Putin was asking to before the war started. Even the mildest options on your list were things like "treaty guarantee Ukraine wouldn't be admitted into NATO" which was asked for in pre-war negotiations and rejected by NATO - people made a big deal about how no, if Ukraine want they are eventually going to join NATO and there is nothing the Russians could do about it. The NATO negotiators would much rather have this war happen & continue than make concessions like that - we can tell because that is what they did and are doing.
If you don't think these suggestions are serious - I'm struggling to understand your position here but it seems that you might be just throwing out ideas - what do you think is on offer at the negotiating table? Russia tried negotiating and it doesn't cut much ice with NATO, that is why we have this stupid war. I assume I'm misinterpreting your comment on the topic, so hopefully some exposition and clarification by yourself will help.
I reiterate that I think Russia is being offered, to a first approximation anyway, "give up, admit defeat and let the US do what it wants". I'm interested to see what you think the Russians can get from negotiating that they can't get from effectively surrendering.
> Armchair generals in the voting public forgetting about SLBMs.
My armchair staff were of the opinion that SLBM were not part of the conversation since they were deployed at sea rather than to nations. I'd be happy if everyone abided by that condition if it does include SLBM, it seems like a good idea to me. Those things nearly triggered a nuclear exchange in the Cuban Missile Crisis, they are too risky and will, literally, eventually get us all killed. And while avoiding nuclear war might give Russia and China the upper hand, I've been pointing out for years that the US's industrial and financial policies are going to put it at a major material disadvantage to anyone who adopts more competent policies. Their foreign policy is also on that list of things they are screwing up.
I want some of what this guy is smoking. If you think the US will ever offer to leave NATO, you aren't living in reality. Not going to happen, and specially not after the invasion of Ukraine.
Putin might be stupid, but you think too lowly of him.
You attack population centers after mutually assured destruction. There is no reason to escalate by creating a humanitarian crisis if you're not already prepared to deal with the consequences (a-la Nagasaki/Hiroshima). The first attacks are tactical and therefore negligible in civilian damage and controversial to discuss. They will certainly be condemned globally, but no one smart enough to stockpile tactical nukes is going to use it somewhere with reprehensible civilian harm. It is both more valuable, smarter, and less costly to deploy it tactically against enemy installations or materiel.
If London is "targeted" then Russia is going to find out just how fucking bad Europe hates them. The nuclear dance is about riding the threshold of plausible escalation without revealing desperation and giving your enemies casus belli.
> You attack population centers after mutually assured destruction.
There have already been what are basically missiles targeting Moscow, any compunction about targeting Russia itself have been overcome and those storm shadows the other day were a pretty inflammatory gambit. It isn't there yet, but extrapolate forward 12 months and I think some sort of strike on the UK is on the cards. May as well be London. The British aren't going to stop until something stops them, if they don't see a red line at hitting Russia proper then they probably don't see any at all anywhere. And Russia has been pretty clear through their targeting in Ukraine that they are happy to go for civilian infrastructure.
Fingers crossed they run out of money or steam before the situation gets much worse, I suppose.
Yup. That’s why London folded after Hitler’s blitz.
Putin is a weak man. His hold on power depends on this war. He’s smarter than this comment because he knows a strike on London of any kind would result in Europe arming Ukraine for a kill versus the current strategy of keeping a low summer.
And this time Britain isn't backed by the world's largest industrial economy. If anything, China is more likely to back Russia to avoid being encircled by the US.
But unified by it. Broadly speaking, the idea that missile blitzes and bombarding a population into submission from the air is as popular by aggressor's as it is proven failed by history.
> there is no possible upside for them in the Ukraine war
There was no upside to fighting Hitler, either. For Poland. For France. For the U.K. When fighting a nearby aggressor you're mitigating downside.
> bloodymindedness
Yes, the peaceful Russians absolutely not sending their non-ethnic Russian boys to the meat grinder.
> this time Britain isn't backed by the world's largest industrial economy
They're also not fighting one of the world's largest industrial economies. Russia is no Nazi Germany.
If on the other hand you grant that he might observe the leaders of world super powers, you’ll notice a striking connection between the change of power in America and the launch of his invasion of Ukraine.
And of course you can assume all of Netenyahoo’s decisions are made in a vacuum too, or you can open your eyes.