EPTEuropean Politico-economics QA Mega-thread - Page 1344
| Forum Index > General Forum |
Although this thread does not function under the same strict guidelines as the USPMT, it is still a general practice on TL to provide a source with an explanation on why it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion. Failure to do so will result in a mod action. | ||
|
evilfatsh1t
Australia8787 Posts
| ||
KwarK
United States43468 Posts
On February 27 2022 16:50 Biff The Understudy wrote: I’m not sure i trust russian failsafe nor Putin to do the rational thing if Russia and Nato start shooting at each other. Do you trust them to do the rational thing if they lose access to SWIFT? If Finland joins NATO? | ||
|
TheLordofAwesome
Korea (South)2655 Posts
On February 27 2022 16:54 KwarK wrote: Do you trust them to do the rational thing if they lose access to SWIFT? If Finland joins NATO? You still seem to think that "no fly zone" = "intervention lite" when "no fly zone" = "NATO launches massive airstrikes against dozens of targets inside the Russian Federation." That is why a no fly zone carries significant risk of nuclear war, whereas SWIFT and Finland joining NATO carries much less. Do you get it now? | ||
|
Silvanel
Poland4740 Posts
| ||
|
RvB
Netherlands6261 Posts
On February 27 2022 15:54 PhoenixVoid wrote: I'm also worried from reports that Russian leadership is demanding that Kyiv be taken by Monday. I fear the Russian military will resort to levelling the city or being far less restrained. There must be some desperation from Putin and his circle to end this quick and start scoring propaganda victories like "Kyiv was liberated". Plus, Monday is when the market opens for Russia, and the ruble is sure to become toilet paper. They don't want that to be the headline. There's already runs on ATMs at 5 a.m. in Russia. Kiev in a day looks impossible considering the difficulty the Russian military has right now everywhere except the south. Even levelling the city won't mean they can just walk in and take it. | ||
|
TheLordofAwesome
Korea (South)2655 Posts
On February 27 2022 17:13 Silvanel wrote: Even nonnuclear war with Russia means I will be drafted and likely killed. It's much easier for You Kwark do advocate war from safety of US soil. Agree 100%. Chickenhawk chestbeating always really irritates me. Kwark should go to Ukraine to battle some Russians himself before advocating that the rest of us be forced to do the same. | ||
|
KwarK
United States43468 Posts
On February 27 2022 17:04 TheLordofAwesome wrote: You still seem to think that "no fly zone" = "intervention lite" when "no fly zone" = "NATO launches massive airstrikes against dozens of targets inside the Russian Federation." That is why a no fly zone carries significant risk of nuclear war, whereas SWIFT and Finland joining NATO carries much less. Do you get it now? I disagree. You’re again leaping straight to war without addressing the dozen choices that would have to be made to get there. The announcement of the intent to enforce it gives an opportunity for deescalation. If that isn’t taken then Russia would still have to consciously launch a mission in breach of the no-fly zone. Again, an opportunity for cooler minds to intervene before it gets carried away. If they ignore it and a Russian bomber gets shot down then there’s still no obligation by either side to expand the theatre outside of Ukraine. Jets could shoot each other over Ukraine all day long with both parties understanding that targets outside of Ukraine are off limits. By this point they really should be talking though. But pilots can die, that’s allowed in “an unfortunate exchange of hostilities during peacekeeping operations”, we’re still a very long way short of war. By the time someone has the dumb idea to start using assets based on Russian soil the “are you nuts?” crowd should be getting pretty loud so that doesn’t happen. But let’s say they do use a SAM based on Russian soil. NATO aren’t nuts so they won’t bomb the launch site but they’ll probably do cyberattacks on Russian oil lines or whatever. NATO has plenty of missiles it can launch from the ground too so the no-fly zone can still be enforced without destroying SAM sites. And again they can confine this strictly to the engagement theatre. They can “assist” the “sovereign nation of Ukraine” with “policing” “illegal violations of its airspace”. We ultimately end up in exactly the same place, talks. You’re treating this as far more binary than anything in the real world is. You can engage in a remarkable amount of violence without getting close to war. We’re already past what would be reasonable provocation to war in the past with the military assistance being provided to Ukraine by the west. But as I keep saying, its not binary. The rules of the game allow “lethal aid” and “intelligence sharing”, even though that amounts to an anti tank missile and the location of a Russian tank. It’s not war because we don’t do war, it’s something else that just happens to involve our missiles and their tanks. But we’ll keep doing it until they talk. | ||
|
TheLordofAwesome
Korea (South)2655 Posts
On February 27 2022 17:14 RvB wrote: Kiev in a day looks impossible considering the difficulty the Russian military has right now everywhere except the south. Even levelling the city won't mean they can just walk in and take it. I would expect the siege of Kiev to drag on for a while. The south, on the other hand, looks like it is falling into Russian hands fairly quickly. | ||
|
KwarK
United States43468 Posts
On February 27 2022 17:13 Silvanel wrote: Even nonnuclear war with Russia means I will be drafted and likely killed. It's much easier for You Kwark do advocate war from safety of US soil. A hardline response to Russian aggression makes war less likely, not more. We wouldn’t be in this position if Crimea hadn’t been permitted. | ||
|
TheLordofAwesome
Korea (South)2655 Posts
On February 27 2022 17:20 KwarK wrote: I disagree. You’re again leaping straight to war without addressing the dozen choices that would have to be made to get there. The announcement of the intent to enforce it gives an opportunity for deescalation. If that isn’t taken then Russia would still have to consciously launch a mission in breach of the no-fly zone. Again, an opportunity for cooler minds to intervene before it gets carried away. If they ignore it and a Russian bomber gets shot down then there’s still no obligation by either side to expand the theatre outside of Ukraine. Jets could shoot each other over Ukraine all day long with both parties understanding that targets outside of Ukraine are off limits. By this point they really should be talking though. But pilots can die, that’s allowed in “an unfortunate exchange of hostilities during peacekeeping operations”, we’re still a very long way short of war. By the time someone has the dumb idea to start using assets based on Russian soil the “are you nuts?” crowd should be getting pretty loud so that doesn’t happen. But let’s say they do use a SAM based on Russian soil. NATO aren’t nuts so they won’t bomb the launch site but they’ll probably do cyberattacks on Russian oil lines or whatever. NATO has plenty of missiles it can launch from the ground too so the no-fly zone can still be enforced without destroying SAM sites. And again they can confine this strictly to the engagement theatre. They can “assist” the “sovereign nation of Ukraine” with “policing” “illegal violations of its airspace”. We ultimately end up in exactly the same place, talks. You’re treating this as far more binary than anything in the real world is. You can engage in a remarkable amount of violence without getting close to war. We’re already past what would be reasonable provocation to war in the past with the military assistance being provided to Ukraine by the west. But as I keep saying, its not binary. The rules of the game allow “lethal aid” and “intelligence sharing”, even though that amounts to an anti tank missile and the location of a Russian tank. It’s not war because we don’t do war, it’s something else that just happens to involve our missiles and their tanks. But we’ll keep doing it until they talk. You clearly have no idea how modern air defense systems work. This is utter lunacy. EDIT: look up SEAD/DEAD missions by the Coalition air campaign in the 1991 Gulf War worked. Once you understand why the campaign plan had to look the way it did, you understand why "no fly zone" = "massive NATO airstrikes in Russia" | ||
|
Silvanel
Poland4740 Posts
On February 27 2022 17:21 KwarK wrote: A hardline response to Russian aggression makes war less likely, not more. We wouldn’t be in this position if Crimea hadn’t been permitted. Of that, I agree. | ||
|
Acrofales
Spain18191 Posts
On February 27 2022 17:20 KwarK wrote: I disagree. You’re again leaping straight to war without addressing the dozen choices that would have to be made to get there. The announcement of the intent to enforce it gives an opportunity for deescalation. If that isn’t taken then Russia would still have to consciously launch a mission in breach of the no-fly zone. Again, an opportunity for cooler minds to intervene before it gets carried away. If they ignore it and a Russian bomber gets shot down then there’s still no obligation by either side to expand the theatre outside of Ukraine. Jets could shoot each other over Ukraine all day long with both parties understanding that targets outside of Ukraine are off limits. By this point they really should be talking though. But pilots can die, that’s allowed in “an unfortunate exchange of hostilities during peacekeeping operations”, we’re still a very long way short of war. By the time someone has the dumb idea to start using assets based on Russian soil the “are you nuts?” crowd should be getting pretty loud so that doesn’t happen. But let’s say they do use a SAM based on Russian soil. NATO aren’t nuts so they won’t bomb the launch site but they’ll probably do cyberattacks on Russian oil lines or whatever. NATO has plenty of missiles it can launch from the ground too so the no-fly zone can still be enforced without destroying SAM sites. And again they can confine this strictly to the engagement theatre. They can “assist” the “sovereign nation of Ukraine” with “policing” “illegal violations of its airspace”. We ultimately end up in exactly the same place, talks. You’re treating this as far more binary than anything in the real world is. You can engage in a remarkable amount of violence without getting close to war. We’re already past what would be reasonable provocation to war in the past with the military assistance being provided to Ukraine by the west. But as I keep saying, its not binary. The rules of the game allow “lethal aid” and “intelligence sharing”, even though that amounts to an anti tank missile and the location of a Russian tank. It’s not war because we don’t do war, it’s something else that just happens to involve our missiles and their tanks. But we’ll keep doing it until they talk. While I think these are all steps that need to be taken before it escalates to nuclear war, I think it is also a foregone conclusion that these steps *will* be taken. It's clear that the Russian "are you nuts?!" crowd you think has a voice, clearly doesn't exist, or Russia would never have invaded Ukraine in the first place. And then we are down to SAMs in Russia blasting NATO jet fighters and the question: does NATO back down and allow the no-fly zone to be effectively moot. So either NATO saves face and doesn't declare the no-fly zone in the first place, or by declaring the no-fly zone you state you are willing to send special forces and/or missiles onto Russian soil to take out AA capabilities. And from that point onwards, the nuclear option *is* a real option. | ||
|
r00ty
Germany1059 Posts
On February 27 2022 17:13 Silvanel wrote: Even nonnuclear war with Russia means I will be drafted and likely killed. It's much easier for You Kwark do advocate war from safety of US soil. I'll be reenlisted as well and gladly serve again in case the Baltics, Poland or Romania are threatened. And yes, enforcing a no-fly zone is engaging in war. | ||
|
KwarK
United States43468 Posts
On February 27 2022 17:23 TheLordofAwesome wrote: You clearly have no idea how modern air defense systems work. This is utter lunacy. You clearly have no idea how conflicts between great powers work in the postwar system. Great powers continually engage in military provocation and yet consistently avoid war because everyone understands what the rules are. Russians giving weapons to Afghan to shoot US soldiers, basically a prank. Russians giving a suitcase nuke to Al Qaeda to use on DC, not a prank, don’t do that. Training rebels to undermine a US ally, good joke. Getting your special forces rebel training camp bombed by said US ally with the loss of some of your soldiers “eh, we had that coming”. Everyone understands what they can get away with and what would require a response. They keep it proportionate and they have talks whenever shit escalates. Nobody backs anyone into a corner and nobody nukes anyone. | ||
|
TheLordofAwesome
Korea (South)2655 Posts
On February 27 2022 17:39 KwarK wrote: You clearly have no idea how conflicts between great powers work in the postwar system. Great powers continually engage in military provocation and yet consistently avoid war because everyone understands what the rules are. Russians giving weapons to Afghan to shoot US soldiers, basically a prank. Russians giving a suitcase nuke to Al Qaeda to use on DC, not a prank, don’t do that. Training rebels to undermine a US ally, good joke. Getting your special forces rebel training camp bombed by said US ally with the loss of some of your soldiers “eh, we had that coming”. Everyone understands what they can get away with and what would require a response. They keep it proportionate and they have talks whenever shit escalates. Nobody backs anyone into a corner and nobody nukes anyone. Enforcing a no fly zone is an act of war. You don't seem to understand that very obvious fact. Who owns the sky in Ukraine may determine the fate of the war, and thus Putin's regime. The man has a thousand nukes at his disposal. Here's a well written explanation by a military historian of why a no fly zone means war, under the section "Direct NATO Intervention." | ||
|
KwarK
United States43468 Posts
On February 27 2022 17:33 Acrofales wrote: While I think these are all steps that need to be taken before it escalates to nuclear war, I think it is also a foregone conclusion that these steps *will* be taken. It's clear that the Russian "are you nuts?!" crowd you think has a voice, clearly doesn't exist, or Russia would never have invaded Ukraine in the first place. And then we are down to SAMs in Russia blasting NATO jet fighters and the question: does NATO back down and allow the no-fly zone to be effectively moot. So either NATO saves face and doesn't declare the no-fly zone in the first place, or by declaring the no-fly zone you state you are willing to send special forces and/or missiles onto Russian soil to take out AA capabilities. And from that point onwards, the nuclear option *is* a real option. I think you’d have to be significantly more crazy to think a nuclear exchange between NATO and Russia is acceptable than to think attempting a regime change in Ukraine is acceptable. I would expect there are oligarchs that are fine with Ukraine getting a Russian backed president that don’t want to die of radiation burns. Those aren’t adjacent things. NATO also has all the same opportunities to deescalate at any time. Russia can choose to use SAMs based in Russia, NATO can choose whether or not to retaliate against them. The idea that it would immediately and irrevocably lead to nuclear exchange just doesn’t follow. | ||
|
KwarK
United States43468 Posts
On February 27 2022 17:37 r00ty wrote: I'll be reenlisted as well and gladly serve again in case the Baltics, Poland or Romania are threatened. And yes, enforcing a no-fly zone is engaging in war. As I keep saying, shooting at each other’s soldiers in a third location isn’t war and hasn’t been for a long time. It’s a little more than a prank (that’s when you have your friend shoot their soldiers) but it’s a diplomatic incident rather than war. If you go to their country to shoot them then that’s a bit more serious but if you’re both in someone else’s country then no harm no foul. You have to go quite a lot further than that to get to war and you can’t really get there by accident. Both sides have to really want it. | ||
|
Jockmcplop
United Kingdom9765 Posts
On February 27 2022 17:52 KwarK wrote: As I keep saying, shooting at each other’s soldiers in a third location isn’t war and hasn’t been for a long time. It’s a little more than a prank (that’s when you have your friend shoot their soldiers) but it’s a diplomatic incident rather than war. If you go to their country to shoot them then that’s a bit more serious but if you’re both in someone else’s country then no harm no foul. You have to go quite a lot further than that to get to war and you can’t really get there by accident. Both sides have to really want it. I don't think Putin and NATO would react the same to their people being killed. NATO have already shown massive hesitancy and extremely obvious fear about Putin. Putin has shown a willingness to escalate things much, much more decisively than NATO. These facts (if you accept them as facts) don't bode well for the idea of a no fly zone imo. | ||
|
Salazarz
Korea (South)2591 Posts
| ||
|
KwarK
United States43468 Posts
On February 27 2022 17:58 Salazarz wrote: Kwark, you seem to be missing the part where Putin doesn't really see Ukraine as 'just another someone else's country.' The entire reason for this invasion is that Putin has decided that Ukraine is Russian zone of influence and he's willing to put pretty much everything on the line to enforce that idea. To suggest that throwing actual NATO firepower to keep him out of there is 'just a diplomatic incident' at this point, given the losses both economic and material that Russia has already taken to achieve this objective, is insane. It goes far beyond that, and your confidence that such a scenario wouldn't lead to nuclear escalation anyway is incredibly optimistic. Maybe it wouldn't indeed, but the whole 'hasn't happened before, won't happen now' is... questionable, at best. The idea that Ukrainian airspace is so critically important to Russian statehood that their survival would be impossible without it and that it would force a nuclear response doesn’t reconcile with the fact that this time last week they didn’t have Ukrainian airspace. The oligarchs upon whose shoulders Putin’s power rests made their money without needing Ukrainian airspace. I doubt they’d be too happy to die of radiation burns in the name of hanging onto something they didn’t care about until last week. But let’s say that the two sides test their will and that the Russians really are more prepared for everyone to die. Fuck it, let them have the airspace then. MAD is built on contradictions, the more insane party always gets to win because ultimately nothing is worth nuclear war. All nuclear powers have the ability to hold the world hostage. But that ridiculous hypothetical where they’re all desperate to burn over it doesn’t mean we have to give it away for free now. At least make them act crazy at the talks first. | ||
| ||
