Current Affairs Ukraine

[Lobster Johnson]

Probably a bit tin foil hat, but not out of the realms of possibility either

Not sure what NATO gain from that, either.

 

[Mutzo Nutzo]

So NATO is invading Belarus now?

??? If it came to an escalation whereby NATO felt compelled to intervene then Belarus would be the obvious target to eradicate the threat to Kyiv from the north.

 

[Rita_Poon]

So, russia absorb parts of Ukraine, does this mean as the fighting continues Ukrainian action is then painted as an attack on the motherland? effectively an excuse to escalate use of arms?

 

[Yarrgh]

??? If it came to an escalation whereby NATO felt compelled to intervene then Belarus would be the obvious target to eradicate the threat to Kyiv from the north.

Why would NATO feel compelled to do that? It didn't with Russia.

It sounds like some are arguing that Poland wants to directly involve themselves in this. I just don't see it happening if cooler heads rule the day.

 

[Yarrgh]

So, russia absorb parts of Ukraine, does this mean as the fighting continues Ukrainian action is then painted as an attack on the motherland? effectively an excuse to escalate use of arms?

Yes and yes. And that second yes is hugely concerning.

 

[Mrk]

The day this horrible botox-filled bloated egg-faced fascist dies a horrible painful death will be a truly beautiful day.

 

[Lobster Johnson]

You'd think that at some point in the last 200 years Russia could have produced one sane, non-evil leader.

 

[davids]

Why would NATO feel compelled to do that? It didn't with Russia.

It sounds like some are arguing that Poland wants to directly involve themselves in this. I just don't see it happening if cooler heads rule the day.

There's the problem. Yeltsin's Russia was open house to the US and they want that back. An upscaling of a war thousands of miles away from the US isn't a problem especially if it's the European Nato membership fighting it and the US arms industry and oil prices thriving from the conflict.Win win for them.

 

[Mutzo Nutzo]

Why would NATO feel compelled to do that? It didn't with Russia.

It sounds like some are arguing that Poland wants to directly involve themselves in this. I just don't see it happening if cooler heads rule the day.

It’s a probability in response to the potential involvement of Belarus into the conflict and the threat of nuclear weapons being deployed / used by Belarus armed forces.

Ukraine is holding its own in the south and east against Russia however if a new assault were to be staged from Belarus then I seriously doubt that Ukraine could fight on all fronts.

NATO in this scenario has a decision to make and the obvious one is to eliminate or negate the threat from the north to assist Ukraine. That would entail slapping Belarus. The interdiction would be fast, limited but highly effective.

 

[slipstream86]

You'd think that at some point in the last 200 years Russia could have produced one sane, non-evil leader.

Gorbachev?

 

[stipe]

This will end with nukes (or internal coup)

 

[Lobster Johnson]

Gorbachev?

I thought of him as soon as I posted that. Ok, let's say "more than 1"

 

[slipstream86]

I thought of him as soon as I posted that. Ok, let's say "more than 1"

Haha fair enough. Although to be extra-pedantic, the most famously evil Soviet leader was actually Georgian....

 

[FrenchDarrenBent]

In terms of spending, it's a complicated argument but the basis of my comment was the estimated spending of GDP on the military, which is an interesting point.

Within the 1970s and early 1980s, Russian military expenditure is reported to have varied from low tweens to as much as 20% of the Soviet GDP.

Compare this with US expenditure versus GDP (we're not looking at raw £ cost), it's estimated to be between a 50% - 100%+ increase. Was that sustainable?

People mention Regan as the catalyst, yet I'd argue that their sustained military spending, at high rates, regardless of economic conditions were its downfall.

You've got to factor in the political mismanagement of the 70s and 80s and change of economic conditions in general, which also played a huge part in it.

But in times of need, did they redistribute their spending (less of %GDP on military) and invest elsewhere or did they maintain their huge military budget?

It simply didn't play a large part in the collapse. Wether it's sustainable is another discussion. Keep in mind that one state is a capitalist democracy (or at least it should be), the other one is communist superstate with a planned economy. Different set of internal rules.


In short, in order not to derail the thread: the collapse of the S.U. came about because of the large technocratic 'middle class' losing faith in the system and wanting a change. If anything the fiasco in Afghanistan, the corruption, the lower living standards and the lack of free speech were at play. Even senior communists, coming up in the system, grew tired of it and were supportive.

There's no real debate about it anymore. If I remember correctly some American academics used CIA estimates (in the late nineties) in order to prove your point, but these were widely off the mark + even if they were correct, there's barely any evidence that the heavy military spending did anything to undermine the system of the old soviet union. (If anything, it helped to intimidate any nation wanting to break free). If spending was the problem, it would've come up in the archives as well.

 

[davids]

It's really quite surreal to see some of the posters on this thread virtually wetting themselves with excitement at the prospect of much of mainland Europe becoming a nuclear wasteland.