Current Affairs Ukraine

[tsubaki]

Notice Putin didnt mention NATO once in his speech last night - why? because he doesnt even view them as a serious obstacle.

He mentioned NATO several times though?

 

[Kev The Rat]

He mentioned NATO several times though?

Sorry not never mentioned - hardly mentioned.

 

[Kev The Rat]

The whole point of a defensive military alliance is to prevent fights, not to protect "friends". It's the equivalent of showing up to the bar with a whole NFL team, so that no one messes with you that night.

The nice spillover effect of such alliances is that the parties can direct their military expenditures more efficiently, and avoid purchasing redundant capabilities.

I’m talking about the ‘after’ not the ‘before’

But youve just said they’re there to prevent fights - not to actually fight.

The equivalent of you showing up with a team of nfl players that leaves you on your own as soon as a punch is thrown.

So we’re in agreement.

 

[PhilM]

Notice Putin didnt mention NATO once in his speech last night - why? because he doesnt even view them as a serious obstacle.

Here's some. They were mentioned a lot and in context.

If Ukraine was to join NATO it would serve as a direct threat to the security of Russia.

A number of member states of the alliance are still very sceptical about the appearance of Ukraine in NATO. At the same time, we are receiving a signal from some European capitals, saying what are you worried about, this will not happen literally tomorrow. Yes, in fact, our American partners are also talking about this.


Well, we answer, if not tomorrow, so the day after tomorrow. What does this change in a historical perspective? Basically, nothing. Moreover, we know the position and words of the US leadership that active hostilities in eastern Ukraine do not exclude the possibility of this country joining NATO if it can meet the criteria of the North Atlantic alliance and defeat corruption.


At the same time, they try to convince us over and over again that NATO is a peace-loving and purely defensive alliance, saying that there are no threats to Russia. Again they propose that we take them at their word. But we know the real value of such words.

We clearly understand that under such a scenario, the level of military threats to Russia will dramatically increase many times over. I pay special attention to the fact that the danger of a sudden strike against our country will increase many times over.

Let me explain that US strategic planning documents contain the possibility of a so-called preemptive strike against enemy missile systems. And who is the main enemy for the US and NATO? We know that too. It’s Russia. In NATO documents, our country is officially and directly declared the main threat to North Atlantic security. And Ukraine will serve as a forward springboard for the strike. If our ancestors had heard about it, they probably would simply not have believed it. And today we don’t want to believe it, but it’s true.

There is only one goal – to restrain the development of Russia. And they will do it, as they did before. Even without any formal pretext at all. Just because we exist, and we will never compromise our sovereignty, national interests and our values. I want to say clearly and directly that in the current situation, when our proposals for an equal dialogue on fundamental issues have actually remained unanswered by the United States and NATO, when the level of threats to our country is increasing significantly, Russia has every right to take retaliatory measures to ensure its own security. That is exactly what we will do.

 

[Ruairi77]

Notice Putin didnt mention NATO once in his speech last night - why? because he doesnt even view them as a serious obstacle.

??? this is all happening because he views them as a serious obstacle.

 

[magicjuan]

Here's some. They were mentioned a lot and in context.

My interpretation of Putin's recent press is a 'plausible' accusation of NATO expansionism, and the concept of threat, always read as militarily, however, imho, the reality was and is economic and resource strategic, as ever usual.
NATO has become like the Eurovision song contest letting in Israel as a contestant, membership not on geographic qualification but on access to audience (materials and or infrastructure).

 

[Kev The Rat]

??? this is all happening because he views them as a serious obstacle.

He does and he doesnt - I am not convinced he views them as a serious enough threat that he wont mess with them for example. But they do need to be dealt with.

 

[Tipp blue]

He does and he doesnt - I am not convinced he views them as a serious enough threat that he wont mess with them for example. But they do need to be dealt with.

Much like NATO view Russia.

 

[Kev The Rat]

Much like NATO view Russia.

Maybe

 

[Ruairi77]

He does and he doesnt - I am not convinced he views them as a serious enough threat that he wont mess with them for example. But they do need to be dealt with.

sorry, I'm lost.
I doubt he'll invade a NATO member state. That would lead to all out war between nuclear groups. Even he is not that insane.
Why do NATO need to be dealt with?

As far as I can see this is Putin looking to secure Ukraine as a friendly puppet state buffer between him and NATO, just like Belarus.
He'll face severe sanctions for this so to justify it to his own people who'll suffer, he's using good old fashioned blind nationalism, the kind of propaganda he used to help bring Brexit and Trump about.

He'll assess the severity of the sanctions and take his next step from there but I think he'll likely hold where he is till the west loses interest, then maybe creep forward in a year or two.

The loss of Nord Stream 2 is huge.

 

[Martin Alvito]

I’m talking about the ‘after’ not the ‘before’

But youve just said they’re there to prevent fights - not to actually fight.

So we’re in agreement.

NATO has protocols in place to enable the parties to coordinate their efforts in the event of a war, so that they don't have to figure it out on the fly the way the Allies did in WWII. Doing things that way led to problems.

This is, however, not why a state signs onto a defensive alliance. They sign on to deter armed aggression. The problem is convincing the prospective opponent that the signatories all mean business. This was the credibility problem the United States faced in West Germany, once massive retaliation was no longer a realistic doctrine. We solved it by putting a whole bunch of troops in harm's way. We knew that meant losing a bunch of them right off the bat, should the Soviets decide to move west in force. The idea was that by losing them, there would be popular pressure at home to retaliate in kind, thus rendering McNamara's doctrine of flexible response credible.

 

[Kev The Rat]

sorry, I'm lost.
I doubt he'll invade a NATO member state. That would lead to all out war between nuclear groups. Even he is not that insane.
Why do NATO need to be dealt with?

As far as I can see this is Putin looking to secure Ukraine as a friendly puppet state buffer between him and NATO, just like Belarus.
He'll face severe sanctions for this so to justify it to his own people who'll suffer, he's using good old fashioned blind nationalism, the kind of propaganda he used to help bring Brexit and Trump about.

He'll assess the severity of the sanctions and take his next step from there but I think he'll likely hold where he is till the west loses interest, then maybe creep forward in a year or two.

The loss of Nord Stream 2 is huge.

The potential expansion into Ukraine needs to be dealt with. And obviously that’s what he’s doing now.

 

[Martin Alvito]

sorry, I'm lost.
I doubt he'll invade a NATO member state. That would lead to all out war between nuclear groups. Even he is not that insane.
Why do NATO need to be dealt with?

As far as I can see this is Putin looking to secure Ukraine as a friendly puppet state buffer between him and NATO, just like Belarus.
He'll face severe sanctions for this so to justify it to his own people who'll suffer, he's using good old fashioned blind nationalism, the kind of propaganda he used to help bring Brexit and Trump about.

He'll assess the severity of the sanctions and take his next step from there but I think he'll likely hold where he is till the west loses interest, then maybe creep forward in a year or two.

The loss of Nord Stream 2 is huge.

I think it's weird that we largely shrugged at the seizure of Crimea by force, and completely shrugged at an eight-year war, but now we are talking tough. I wouldn't be surprised if Putin also thinks it's weird.

That sort of behavior is not unusual from democracies, though. Biden did a very good job of getting out in front of this one in the media, starting a couple of months ago. That has given him the initiative to grab control of the narrative, IMO. Obviously, the US favors a much tougher line on this than European allies that will be more negatively affected economically.

Quick note - what polling data we have suggests that a very high percentage of Russians indicate that they did not feel the effects of previous economic sanctions. Whether that is true or not, or if that's a result of an uneducated populace not understanding how things work, are open questions.

 

[tsubaki]

I think it's weird that we largely shrugged at the seizure of Crimea by force, and completely shrugged at an eight-year war, but now we are talking tough. I wouldn't be surprised if Putin also thinks it's weird.

That sort of behavior is not unusual from democracies, though. Biden did a very good job of getting out in front of this one in the media, starting a couple of months ago. That has given him the initiative to grab control of the narrative, IMO. Obviously, the US favors a much tougher line on this than European allies that will be more negatively affected economically.

Quick note - what polling data we have suggests that a very high percentage of Russians indicate that they did not feel the effects of previous economic sanctions. Whether that is true or not, or if that's a result of an uneducated populace not understanding how things work, are open questions.

I think with Crimea the differences were twofold- firstly the history of that place (in which the Russian claim really was strong) and secondly the relative absence of threats.

Then there’s the way it happened, as in not drawn out and without making fools of most European leaders. Putin this time is clearly threatening multiple EU and NATO states and I think a lot of people think that if there is going to be a proper break with Russia you may as well have it now.

 

[Sharpattack]

Emergency UN Security Council meeting on Ukraine crisis will start in about 20 minutes and will be chaired by Russia, which currently holds the presidency of the Council.