Spadge Vernacular
Player Valuation: £70m
Asylum claims will be up.
Current Affairs Ukraine
- Thread starter Mutzo Nutzo
- Start date
- Status
Martin Alvito
Player Valuation: £50m
I would fully agree with @PhilM that there's a strong argument to be made that a cease-fire under present conditions would be normalizing the seizure of territory by force of arms.
If the repatriation of the seized territory south of the Dnieper, including Crimea, were on the table then that would be different. I think Putin could get away with an independent, demilitarized Donbas, but he would almost certainly have to give the rest back to reach a compromise settlement that all parties might accept.
bluestevon
Player Valuation: £80m
The power of the collective, by and large the path of NATO membership for European countries leads to EU membership also.
A massive reduction in defense spending as the US tends to foot the defence bill for pretty much NATO single handedly (pre Feb not sure exactly how many countries met their defence spending % but I know it was pitifully low).
The nuclear umbrella and article 5 protection.
NATO membership carries with it a lot of additional benefits as well, perceived prestige etc. Don't think anyone would have heard of Duda for example or the Baltic presidents if they weren't in NATO as it's kinda their only voice internationally.
So yeah a lot of advantages for a lot of countries to join, given the anti Russian sentiment across a fair few eastern European countries I can certainly see why they would wish to join NATO as it'd also be a popular vote winner in terms of elections also.
Not sure why France rejoined though or why the likes of Sweden who stayed neutral throughout WW2 suddenly thinks it's a good idea too. Finland has the history with Russia but the relationship for a long time now has been actually pretty decent.
Question to ask is what advantage to existing NATO countries did expending from 1990 bring, in terms of security which is it's principal stated aim, I'm honestly not sure it brought any to them whatsoever.
Last edited:
Martin Alvito
Player Valuation: £50m
Very good argument in the vein of BdM et al. (The Logic of Political Survival is the book in question.)
Interesting lens to view this through - the security services are loyal to Putin, and they're going to be pitted against the military sooner or later. The last time that happened in Russia, Zhukov took out Beria. On the other hand, Putin surely knows that history. Does he have enough loyalists in the military to play one move ahead this time? Very interesting question that it would take a quality area specialist to answer. This one seems to think he does not.
Spadge Vernacular
Player Valuation: £70m
The position that Putin is putting Russia in is just stupid. China will pick them apart whilst smiling and talking about friendships without limits.
www.defenseone.com
Putin’s Terrible, Horrible, No Good, Very Bad Week Looks Even Worse Through a China Lens
A series of meetings reveal how Beijing is stealing Russia’s influence even in its own backyard.
www.defenseone.com
Martin Alvito
Player Valuation: £50m
I don't think China wants to move in that direction. They want cheap energy and a secure border to the northwest, so they can further their ambitions in the South China Sea and the Pacific. A crippled Russia that is little more than a gas station suits them just fine.The position that Putin is putting Russia in is just stupid. China will pick them apart whilst smiling and talking about friendships without limits.
Putin’s Terrible, Horrible, No Good, Very Bad Week Looks Even Worse Through a China Lens
A series of meetings reveal how Beijing is stealing Russia’s influence even in its own backyard.
Of course, the problem there is that if Russia is a paper tiger, that frees up the U.S. to reposition part of its fleet and counter China's shipbuilding with existing assets.
tsubaki
Player Valuation: £90m
TBF I think the main issue with Finland and Sweden was the nature of Russian arguments used to justify the February invasion; talking about a countries rights to other peoples lands ruled 100+ years ago (and then enforcing those rights by military means) guarantees instability in neighbour countries and the need to find allies. The Finns were able to co-exist with the Soviets for years after 1945 without significant problems but that option may not exist anymore, because of the lack of trust.
As for NATO, I do wonder whether it has become a proxy for what is probably the real issue here, which is the danger that the EU represents to the established order of things. For countries near the EU, it is the EU's ability to peacefully absorb other countries - which is something almost unprecedented in world history and really difficult to defend against for authoritarian (especially corrupt authoritarian) regimes. When people in Belarus or Ukraine (or Russia, ultimately) see their neighbours in Poland / the Baltics getting a higher standard of living (never mind what is happening further West) they are much more likely to want that sort of thing too, as we have seen repeatedly since the early 2000s.
Then there is the danger that the EU poses to the US - against authoritarian rivals the US will always be able to advertise itself as a freer, richer place and to use its cultural / social advantages to influence populations and cause disaffection. They can't do that to the EU (because its as big, nearly as rich and has an even more diverse set of cultural / social advantages), nor is there an obvious military threat with which to scare the population- this only leaves encouraging dependence (via NATO) as a viable means by which to exert control.
If the EU ever sorted out a common means of defence (ie: a single EU Armed Forces), NATO would not exist. If that does happen, does anyone expect Putin to calm down?
Tennessee Blue Mike
Player Valuation: £50m
Believe me China knows full well the disintegration of Russia will be a major benefit to them. Europe will also benefit. Russia will never be trusted again and yes the US can focus on the pacific. Heard a retired General this morning saying Russia’s corruption has weakened them beyond belief and it has become shocking. Just fired there logistical General as casualties and equipment have been unprecedented. From the top down it has been a epic fail.
Spadge Vernacular
Player Valuation: £70m
When I say chip at, I mean exploit with regards to access to cheap minerals and become the dominant partner poltically.
Yarrgh
Player Valuation: £80m
I think you'll see some nuclear devastation in the middle or west of Ukraine before this happens.
PeregrineT
Player Valuation: £40m
Its amazing to see the Russian ego so massive that they continue to destroy themselves. Literally the only thing taking down Russia right now is ego, and a wrong view of who they are. A week in, they could have realized the mistake and left, taking hard losses but able to rebuild. A month in, more damage, but could have been the same. Every month that goes by, all they do is ensure that in the long run more Russia is destroyed, or left to ruin. At any point they can cut from the conflict, return to how things were, take the loss but have something to rebuild at home even if it now takes a long time.
But they wont. Their ego wont let them. So they will continue to march themselves into the fire until they destroy all that is Russia, born out of the ego and belief that Russia is indestructible. Every month and every push forward a bit more of what they built permanently dies until it is all gone.
But they wont. Their ego wont let them. So they will continue to march themselves into the fire until they destroy all that is Russia, born out of the ego and belief that Russia is indestructible. Every month and every push forward a bit more of what they built permanently dies until it is all gone.
Martin Alvito
Player Valuation: £50m
That does seem to be the direction we're headed in at the moment.
I tend to agree that Crimea never hits the table, which means the war drags on until that becomes more or less the situation on the ground, Putin is removed or Ukraine is decisively defeated east of the Dnieper. I don't think Putin will use nuclear weapons short of a violation of de jure Russian territory, but an incursion into Crimea would definitely put that to the test.
If Russia was genuinely contemplating using their tactical weapons bar for, as you mention, a serious infringement of their territory, why call up so many troops?
Or that's my perspective on it. They'll use CW before then because they know that NATO would have to respond, or they'd have allowed pandora's box to open.
Every nation that developed nuclear capability would be emboldened by the lack of response, and from there it'd be a spiral towards real trouble.
It's the red line and everyone knows it.
Martin Alvito
Player Valuation: £50m
Debatably, Putin could reverse his losses with chemical weapons right now if he wished...but it's unclear whether his choice not to cross that line is due to the expected response from the West or the absence of the appropriate gear for his own soldiers to execute the counter-offensive. It's almost certainly the former, but circumstances render the latter a sustainable explanation.
- Status