Current Affairs Ukraine

[PhilM]

If MAD exists - and although I agree countries may well pay lip service to it - but I’m not sure it does in reality - then it’s likely the reason why Russia will actually never be ejected from Ukraine.

Would you care to elaborate on this point?

 

[Kev The Rat]

Would you care to elaborate on this point?

I’ve made the point that I believe that a nuclear attack on a non nato country - and maybe even on a nato country not named the USA - would not result in direct retaliation against the country that fired the missile.

The west is run by oligarchs not by idealogues, and for oligarchs preservation of their capital and their own personal safety is paramount. This isn’t the 70s or 80s any more.

MAD only really comes into play if Washington or New York are nuked imo.

Having said that I believe lip service is being paid to it which is why Russia will never be removed from Ukraine.

 

[davids]

Firstly, I doubt he would use them because of the expected response. But from that, I suspect it all depends on what you mean by a strong response.

That's not trying to deflect your question and point, rather I really don't know what it would constitute - I can only surmise. A nuclear response? Unlikely.

If it was on a NATO country, it would certainly warrant one. For Ukraine, it's far less likely, however to not respond at all would open the proverbial Pandora's box.

Every country with nuclear weapons would know they could use them in localised conflicts if not fighting a NATO or its equivalent, and that could spiral.

What do I think the response would be? Possibly sinking the Black Sea Fleet or a serious precision striker on key Russian assets and whatnot.

You'll likely respond with, well they have nuclear weapons and may response in kind, and that's where MAD comes in. It is in nobody's interest to let it spiral.

Hence, why I strongly believe Russia won't use them.

Maybe contradicting myself slightly here, but Putin's brashness is almost laughable. Only him and the Israelis are so brazen to openly assisatnate on foreign soil.

What worries me is he has the prime trait of a psychopath,he's a gambler who believes he can get out of any situation by acting first.The Wagner situation only feeds into his belief that whatever happens he's untouchable.

 

[tsubaki]

I’ve made the point that I believe that a nuclear attack on a non nato country - and maybe even on a nato country not named the USA - would not result in direct retaliation against the country that fired the missile.

The west is run by oligarchs not by idealogues, and for oligarchs preservation of their capital and their own personal safety is paramount. This isn’t the 70s or 80s any more.

MAD only really comes into play if Washington or New York are nuked imo.

Having said that I believe lip service is being paid to it which is why Russia will never be removed from Ukraine.

The problem with this analysis is that not responding to a nuclear attack on an ally guarantees escalation; there is no reason not to continue to use nuclear weapons for the aggressor and it would immediately collapse the alliance (and system of alliances) that were built around it.

If a single nuke was used against an ally nation and it was clearly attributable to a particular enemy, the reaction would almost certainly be a single nuke in response on an equivalent, non-capital target that had been communicated to the enemy in advance of the launch.

If Ukraine was nuked by Russia, I agree there probably would not be an nuclear response from the West but we would be living in a very different world afterwards, with - one imagines - rather less global acquiescence in what they are doing and far more nuclear proliferation than we have now.

As for Russia being removed, as I've said previously every Russian seizure of territory in Ukraine just makes what is left that much more Ukrainian.

 

[PhilM]

What worries me is he has the prime trait of a psychopath,he's a gambler who believes he can get out of any situation by acting first.The Wagner situation only feeds into his belief that whatever happens he's untouchable.

Within Russia yes. Even the poisonings in London were of Russians, and ex-KGB/FSB too, so it’s within his sphere of influence so to speak.

That’s not excusing his behaviour, far from it, but rather considering why he acted so blatantly, and perhaps why our response was mute.

Would it have been the same if it was a UK national? I suspect not. His actions with Wanter are again within Russia, where he appears safe.

Nevertheless, I still sincerely believe that nuclear weapons is a step too far for the reasons stated, and he and his cronies know that.

You could justly reply that the sham elections in the Donbas may make him believe it’s Russian territory, so he can freely act like I stated above.

But I would say that’s ignoring that the west are unlikely to play that tune, and would respond. So unless it truly warrants it, nuclear weapons are a no.

 

[PhilM]

I’ve made the point that I believe that a nuclear attack on a non nato country - and maybe even on a nato country not named the USA - would not result in direct retaliation against the country that fired the missile.

The west is run by oligarchs not by idealogues, and for oligarchs preservation of their capital and their own personal safety is paramount. This isn’t the 70s or 80s any more.

MAD only really comes into play if Washington or New York are nuked imo.

Having said that I believe lip service is being paid to it which is why Russia will never be removed from Ukraine.

So MAD does exist?

 

[Kev The Rat]

The problem with this analysis is that not responding to a nuclear attack on an ally guarantees escalation; there is no reason not to continue to use nuclear weapons for the aggressor and it would immediately collapse the alliance (and system of alliances) that were built around it.

If a single nuke was used against an ally nation and it was clearly attributable to a particular enemy, the reaction would almost certainly be a single nuke in response on an equivalent, non-capital target that had been communicated to the enemy in advance of the launch.

If Ukraine was nuked by Russia, I agree there probably would not be an nuclear response from the West but we would be living in a very different world afterwards, with - one imagines - rather less global acquiescence in what they are doing and far more nuclear proliferation than we have now.

As for Russia being removed, as I've said previously every Russian seizure of territory in Ukraine just makes what is left that much more Ukrainian.

I disagree with your second paragraph if the target nation was Poland for example. Not a chance the USA would authorise the use of a nuke on Russia in response. Or any kind of attack on it in fact. Sorry just not having it.

Your fourth paragraph isn’t really relevant to the point of Russia leaving. There’s always been a large percentage of Ukrainians that hate Russia and a large percentage of Ukrainians that support them. Russia will stay regardless of hostility. They understand the problems they will face which is why they’ve got an army there.

 

[Kev The Rat]

So MAD does exist?

yes but not to the extent that NATO is part of the calculation

 

[tsubaki]

I disagree with your second paragraph if the target nation was Poland for example. Not a chance the USA would authorise the use of a nuke on Russia in response. Or any kind of attack on it in fact. Sorry just not having it.

Your fourth paragraph isn’t really relevant to the point of Russia leaving. There’s always been a large percentage of Ukrainians that hate Russia and a large percentage of Ukrainians that support them. Russia will stay regardless of hostility. They understand the problems they will face which is why they’ve got an army there.

Of course they would - any of the nuclear-armed hegemonic states would. Do you think Russia would not respond the same way if Belarus was nuked by an aggressor?

If a nuclear state didn't respond, the whole reason for having a nuclear deterrent is removed.

 

[PhilM]

yes but not to the extent that NATO is part of the calculation

So, you have on good authority, that Article 5 of the NATO charter would be completely ignored? What is the point in the alliance then?

Also, I’m wondering if you’re definition of MAD may be slightly wayward, as it’s a doctrine based on the widespread us of nuclear weapons.

For example, if Russia launched a full scale assault on the US, their retaliatory strike would annihilate the attacker. That’s not what we’re taking about here.

We’re talking about a measure response here, perhaps not nuclear. If Russia retaliated from that, or vice versa, then MAD would possibly come into play.

If Russia used nuclear weapons on a NATO country, there would be a response.

 

[Kev The Rat]

So, you have on good authority, that Article 5 of the NATO charter would be completely ignored? What is the point in the alliance then?

Also, I’m wondering if you’re definition of MAD may be slightly wayward, as it’s a doctrine based on the widespread us of nuclear weapons.

For example, if Russia launched a full scale assault on the US, their retaliatory strike would annihilate the attacker. That’s not what we’re taking about here.

We’re talking about a measure response here, perhaps not nuclear. If Russia retaliated from that, or vice versa, then MAD would possibly come into play.

If Russia used nuclear weapons on a NATO country, there would be a response.

Interesting you raise the point of article 5.

If you read what it says it does not commit any of the member states to any kind of war if invoked. What it actually says is that each member state may assist/participate in whatever way they choose.

This might be along the lines of sending a telegram conveying their best wishes and good luck to the affected member state for example.

From the nato website :

The principle of providing assistance​

With the invocation of Article 5, Allies can provide any form of assistance they deem necessary to respond to a situation. This is an individual obligation on each Ally and each Ally is responsible for determining what it deems necessary in the particular circumstances

 

[Lobster Johnson]

Sorry not a chance any American oligarch is going to allow themselves to be nuked for the sake of Warsaw.

There’s the theory and there’s reality - and reality is where the whole thing falls apart imo

Your opinion also posted that terrible dead man’s switch nonsense earlier and stated Putin put a stop to recruiting from prisons.

So, y’know

 

[Kev The Rat]

Of course they would - any of the nuclear-armed hegemonic states would. Do you think Russia would not respond the same way if Belarus was nuked by an aggressor?

If a nuclear state didn't respond, the whole reason for having a nuclear deterrent is removed.

Sorry not a chance any American oligarch is going to allow themselves to be nuked for the sake of Warsaw.

There’s the theory and there’s reality - and reality is where the whole thing falls apart imo

 

[tsubaki]

Sorry not a chance any American oligarch is going to allow themselves to be nuked for the sake of Warsaw.

There’s the theory and there’s reality - and reality is where the whole thing falls apart imo

Sorry Kev but I don't think you understand how oligarchy works.

The US position in the world is based on its military and economic might. Reduce that and their position goes away - meaning less for the oligarchs.

 

[Rita_Poon]

The 'reality' of top educational skype calls to check the relevance of an apparently under developed language. Now it's Warsaw's turn, So the Poles, the Welsh and the Ukrainians. Who's for 'house'?