Current Affairs Ukraine

[Yarrgh]

Talking of friends, what’s happened to Dave’s bestie and Russian bot @ramacca ?

Hit the moderator meat grinder.

 

[Spadge Vernacular]

Not in the slightest. Dr. Snyder makes the claim that the decision to invade Ukraine has nothing to do with NATO. It has quite a great deal to do with NATO. His analysis ignores future security risks (and ignores everything we know about risk altogether, truth be told) and focuses solely on the present situation.

That's not how security works, it's not how leaders make security decisions, and there's ample empirical support to back the counterclaims up.

Sorry if my reply seemed curt, looking back at it I can see that it might be read the wrong way.

Snyder is saying that Putin didn't fear NATO. As you say, Putin of the back of NATO's non reactions (multiple) including Crimea cleary didn't think (fear) any sort of NATO involvement/support. Whether this was learned behaviour and poor intel, including the state of Russias military he, as Snyder says, didn't fear NATO.

 

[Drico]

Sorry if my reply seemed curt, looking back at it I can see that it might be read the wrong way.

Snyder is saying that Putin didn't fear NATO. As you say, Putin of the back of NATO's non reactions (multiple) including Crimea cleary didn't think (fear) any sort of NATO involvement/support. Whether this was learned behaviour and poor intel, including the state of Russias military he, as Snyder says, didn't fear NATO.

Why would Putin fear NATO? Ukraine was not a NATO member. There's been a lot of talk that Putin won't stop at Ukraine, but that only makes sense if one doesn't trust NATO to defend NATO members or one thinks Putin will risk nuclear war.

Now, I don't think Putin will risk nuclear war. I don't think he's a mad man. A savage? Yes. Mad? No evidence for that. But the idea that we should all back Ukraine because Putin will invade Poland or the Baltics only stands if we do not believe NATO will defend its own members. And if we believe that, then we all need to be rethinking why we go along with US foreign policy.

Of course, if Trump wins all bets are off.

Is Moldova or other non-NATO members at risk? Absolutely. But, in the end, they are not NATO members. Are we going to fight a nuclear war for Moldova or Georgia, or Ukraine? No.

The more interesting question that the Americans, in particular, have to answer is: are we going to fight a nuclear war for, say, Latvia, Lithuania, or Estonia? If no, then NATO is a sham. And American hegemony is over.

 

[Martin Alvito]

Sorry if my reply seemed curt, looking back at it I can see that it might be read the wrong way.

Snyder is saying that Putin didn't fear NATO. As you say, Putin of the back of NATO's non reactions (multiple) including Crimea cleary didn't think (fear) any sort of NATO involvement/support. Whether this was learned behaviour and poor intel, including the state of Russias military he, as Snyder says, didn't fear NATO.

He does not fear NATO invasion in the near term.

His largest long-term security threat is strategic. A second nuclear arms race has kicked off, and we started it. One thing the Obama administration did that flew under the radar was dramatically increase the accuracy of our re-entry vehicles, and Putin was not happy. From his perspective, this meant we could send one missile to do the work of three in counter-force (silo-busting) operations. Another way of putting that is that the US nearly tripled the effective quantity of its ICBM force without violating New START by exploiting a loophole in the design of previous arms control treaties.

Enter the hypersonic missile race, which is why the INF treaty collapsed. China, the US and Russia are all conducting research into missiles that travel at near-ICBM speeds, but are fired from much closer in. The trajectory on these is non-traditional. The missile is fired on a trajectory almost straight up out of the Earth's atmosphere, then a second burn lines up the warhead with the target and gravity does the rest. This enables the delivery of a nuclear warhead traveling at high velocity, rendering it tough to intercept with traditional ABM systems, in mere minutes rather than an hour.

What Putin is concerned about is the use of NATO countries for the stationing of such weapons. The closer NATO becomes to his borders, the less warning time Moscow has before they get hit. The more directions said weapons are pointing from, the more effective a prospective simultaneous barrage becomes. If the speed at which such a warhead can be delivered becomes great enough, and enough weapons can be launched simultaneously to overwhelm ABM systems, the game is up. The ultimate nightmare of strategic planners, a disabling first strike that leaves no opportunity for a command-and-control second strike response, becomes possible.

Dr. Snyder completely ignores all of these dynamics, in addition to risk and perception models of conflict. Putin doesn't know just how fast such a weapon can become in the end. What he does know is that every mile closer NATO gets to his borders, the more possible such a strike becomes in the future. It's why he's so heavily invested in Belarus. It's why he can't have Ukraine joining NATO. It's why the Baltics and Finland perceive a threat to their security.

Washington does not face the same problem as Moscow. So long as the US submarine force rules the Atlantic and Canada is friendly, he can't do the same to us.

 

[Goat]

Why would Putin fear NATO? Ukraine was not a NATO member. There's been a lot of talk that Putin won't stop at Ukraine, but that only makes sense if one doesn't trust NATO to defend NATO members or one thinks Putin will risk nuclear war.

Now, I don't think Putin will risk nuclear war. I don't think he's a mad man. A savage? Yes. Mad? No evidence for that. But the idea that we should all back Ukraine because Putin will invade Poland or the Baltics only stands if we do not believe NATO will defend its own members. And if we believe that, then we all need to be rethinking why we go along with US foreign policy.

Of course, if Trump wins all bets are off.

Is Moldova or other non-NATO members at risk? Absolutely. But, in the end, they are not NATO members. Are we going to fight a nuclear war for Moldova or Georgia, or Ukraine? No.

The more interesting question that the Americans, in particular, have to answer is: are we going to fight a nuclear war for, say, Latvia, Lithuania, or Estonia? If no, then NATO is a sham. And American hegemony is over.

You are really saying that Putin invading Ukraine are not the actions of a mad man?

I mean I strongly disagree with that thinking.

 

[Drico]

You are really saying that Putin invading Ukraine are not the actions of a mad man?

I mean I strongly disagree with that thinking.

Yes, I am. He's many things - autocratic, barbaric, despotic - but mad as in insane? Nope. I don't see that at all. We'd all love to believe it because it allows us to dismiss evil as a form of madness. But that's wishful thinking.

Is his invasion of Ukraine "mad"? Not really. A strategic error, quite probably for many reasons. But it still looks like he will gain significant swathes of territory. On that metric, he can claim some success.

People, since the start of this war, have kept forgetting that Ukraine is not a member of NATO. Or the EU. Therefore, there was never a guarantee that other nations would come to their aid - and Putin had already taken a huge chunk of the country with impunity in 2014. Ukraine was never the hill the West was going to die on. Putin knew that. I would doubt that the Baltics would be that hill either, but that means the US are running a sham military alliance. A bit like if the EU allowed the UK to get a Brexit deal at Ireland's expense, member states are watching this like hawks. If NATO will not defend its members - like the EU did - then it will cease to exist. Maybe that's a price the US - certainly under Trump - will pay. All the more reason why the EU needs its own army or alliance.

 

[Goat]

Yes, I am. He's many things - autocratic, barbaric, despotic - but mad as in insane? Nope. I don't see that at all. We'd all love to believe it because it allows us to dismiss evil as a form of madness. But that's wishful thinking.

Is his invasion of Ukraine "mad"? Not really. A strategic error, quite probably for many reasons. But it still looks like he will gain significant swathes of territory. On that metric, he can claim some success.

People, since the start of this war, have kept forgetting that Ukraine is not a member of NATO. Or the EU. Therefore, there was never a guarantee that other nations would come to their aid - and Putin had already taken a huge chunk of the country with impunity in 2014. Ukraine was never the hill the West was going to die on. Putin knew that. I would doubt that the Baltics would be that hill either, but that means the US are running a sham military alliance. A bit like if the EU allowed the UK to get a Brexit deal at Ireland's expense, member states are watching this like hawks. If NATO will not defend its members - like the EU did - then it will cease to exist. Maybe that's a price the US - certainly under Trump - will pay. All the more reason why the EU needs its own army or alliance.

If Russia invades Poland, NATO will come to its Aid.

 

[Drico]

If Russia invades Poland, NATO will come to its Aid.

I agree about Poland. And Putin - not being mad - won't risk a nuclear war over that.

 

[Goat]

I agree about Poland. And Putin - not being mad - won't risk a nuclear war over that.

But I dont see him invading Poland.

I mean they dont have the troops to invade The Isle of Man currently.

 

[Martin Alvito]

You are really saying that Putin invading Ukraine are not the actions of a mad man?

I mean I strongly disagree with that thinking.

I am absolutely saying that and have from the start. The mistake he made was living in a bubble. All he had to do was ask, "What do Western academics and media think, and why?" Then, one more step was required. "Is what they're saying about what happens in our military units true?"

From there, the rest is second nature for a former KGB colonel. Send someone undercover and give them the mission of verification, then reporting back. Upon discovering the truth, clean house at the top to demonstrate his anger, task the newly promoted generals with solving the problems, then invade. Ukraine wasn't on a pathway to NATO accession due to Russia's possession of Crimea and the proxy war in Eastern Ukraine, so he had the time.

 

[Drico]

But I dont see him invading Poland.

I mean they dont have the troops to invade The Isle of Man currently.

Agreed. Which is why all this talk that "If we don't stop Putin in Ukraine, Europe will be next" is a pile of propaganda.

 

[Martin Alvito]

Agreed. Which is why all this talk that "If we don't stop Putin in Ukraine, Europe will be next" is a pile of propaganda.

It's more, "If we normalize wars of territorial aggression, Taiwan is next." Trouble is, we're undercutting that in Gaza. That warps the message to, "Our friends may feel free to bash the neighbors over the head and take their land away if they like, but our enemies may not."

That's foolish of us. It creates enemies, who realize it's band together against the cool kids' club or be next up on the docket if there's a squabble.

 

[Spadge Vernacular]

Why would Putin fear NATO? Ukraine was not a NATO member. There's been a lot of talk that Putin won't stop at Ukraine, but that only makes sense if one doesn't trust NATO to defend NATO members or one thinks Putin will risk nuclear war.

Now, I don't think Putin will risk nuclear war. I don't think he's a mad man. A savage? Yes. Mad? No evidence for that. But the idea that we should all back Ukraine because Putin will invade Poland or the Baltics only stands if we do not believe NATO will defend its own members. And if we believe that, then we all need to be rethinking why we go along with US foreign policy.

Of course, if Trump wins all bets are off.

Is Moldova or other non-NATO members at risk? Absolutely. But, in the end, they are not NATO members. Are we going to fight a nuclear war for Moldova or Georgia, or Ukraine? No.

The more interesting question that the Americans, in particular, have to answer is: are we going to fight a nuclear war for, say, Latvia, Lithuania, or Estonia? If no, then NATO is a sham. And American hegemony is over.

The issue with Putin is that he is a classic bully who has been allowed to run riot without any consequences.

I do not for one second believe that he thought that the west and NATO would react to his SMO as has been the case.

This mentallity that has been allowed to grow has seen Putin and Russia emboldened enough to carry out hits within the UK using highly dangerous nerve agents which were left in the local community at Salisbury. The same in a hospitality venue for Litvinenko, and offering bounties to Taliban-linked militants for killing American troops in Afghanistan.

So did he fear NATO and the west during this period, clearly no. Would he still hold the same opinion now, I am not so sure, especially as a fraction of NATOs budget to arm a limited power in Ukraine has shown how poor the Russian military is. I suspect he now knows that if he went toe to toe with NATO he would face having to use nukes or he'd be defeated.

His big hope now, as you say is his puppet, Trump, and the GOP. If Trump won, Europe would have to stand up and take responsibility for its own back yard.

 

[Spadge Vernacular]

He does not fear NATO invasion in the near term.

His largest long-term security threat is strategic. A second nuclear arms race has kicked off, and we started it. One thing the Obama administration did that flew under the radar was dramatically increase the accuracy of our re-entry vehicles, and Putin was not happy. From his perspective, this meant we could send one missile to do the work of three in counter-force (silo-busting) operations. Another way of putting that is that the US nearly tripled the effective quantity of its ICBM force without violating New START by exploiting a loophole in the design of previous arms control treaties.

Enter the hypersonic missile race, which is why the INF treaty collapsed. China, the US and Russia are all conducting research into missiles that travel at near-ICBM speeds, but are fired from much closer in. The trajectory on these is non-traditional. The missile is fired on a trajectory almost straight up out of the Earth's atmosphere, then a second burn lines up the warhead with the target and gravity does the rest. This enables the delivery of a nuclear warhead traveling at high velocity, rendering it tough to intercept with traditional ABM systems, in mere minutes rather than an hour.

What Putin is concerned about is the use of NATO countries for the stationing of such weapons. The closer NATO becomes to his borders, the less warning time Moscow has before they get hit. The more directions said weapons are pointing from, the more effective a prospective simultaneous barrage becomes. If the speed at which such a warhead can be delivered becomes great enough, and enough weapons can be launched simultaneously to overwhelm ABM systems, the game is up. The ultimate nightmare of strategic planners, a disabling first strike that leaves no opportunity for a command-and-control second strike response, becomes possible.

Dr. Snyder completely ignores all of these dynamics, in addition to risk and perception models of conflict. Putin doesn't know just how fast such a weapon can become in the end. What he does know is that every mile closer NATO gets to his borders, the more possible such a strike becomes in the future. It's why he's so heavily invested in Belarus. It's why he can't have Ukraine joining NATO. It's why the Baltics and Finland perceive a threat to their security.

Washington does not face the same problem as Moscow. So long as the US submarine force rules the Atlantic and Canada is friendly, he can't do the same to us.

As per the post above in response to Drico but also to note that Putin has admitted that he is not bothered about NATO moving to Russias borders (Finland etc) as he believes no power would invade a nuclear power. He is in Ukraine for resources and management of pipelines, shipping and the like, the usual economic drivers behind wars.

 

[Mutzo Nutzo]

I’d say that NATO’s eastward expansion pissed him off but it wasn’t the reason for invading Ukraine.

Putin’s hero is Peter the Great and he sees the restoration of Russias historical borders as his legacy, as under Peter the Great, Russia conquered the Baltic states and the land bordering the Black Sea (Ukraine and Crimea).

The invasion and capture of Crimea only served to embolden him to begin plotting the eventual invasion of Ukraine.

He’s a colonial imperialist, pure and simple