|
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. |
On February 27 2022 17:39 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On February 27 2022 17:23 TheLordofAwesome wrote:On February 27 2022 17:20 KwarK wrote:On February 27 2022 17:04 TheLordofAwesome wrote:On February 27 2022 16:54 KwarK wrote: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? 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. 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.
Until they do. But then it is too late. The no fly zone is not comparable to the "countless" situations you are describing and Putins standing was not as dependent on them as it is in this case.
I mean I am pretty sure at this point you are just arguing to be right and it is a pretty comfortable place to be in because you can be smug until you are wrong and when that point in time comes Noone will be left to ridicule you.
|
On February 27 2022 17:52 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On February 27 2022 17:37 r00ty wrote: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. 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.
And where we differ of opinion is that declaring a no-fly zone is NATO saying "we really want it".
As for whether there are sane people in the nuclear chain of command who can prevent nuclear war, like there were during previous crises, depends for a large part on Putin. Will Putin order a nuclear strike if Russian AA installations on Russian soil get taken out by NATO forces?
It all depends. Unlike USSR leaders Putin cannot retire. He cannot be forced out in disgrace and continue a similar lifestyle in retirement, knowing his family is safe. USSR had some pretty cutthroat place, but post-Stalin, by and large, its leaders could leave power without it being fatal. That is pretty much not the case for Putin. He's a classical kleptocrat, and his fate will probably be no better than that of Mubarak, Khadafi, or if you prefer eastern European examples: Ceausescu.
So unless Putin can get to the point where he can negotiate a power transition to a sympathetic successor, he's screwed. For some reason he believes military victory in Ukraine is on his path to that point.
And what happens if he is denied that transition by NATO (or at least, he perceives it that way and has credible enough evidence to convince his generals)? We don't know. Maybe his love for Mother Russia (and the world) is enough to prevent his pulling the trigger on nukes. Maybe he's a spiteful fucker who would rather blow it all up than not have it for himself.
The generals might not be as spiteful, but Putin can probably replace enough of them until he finds ones on whom the propaganda that NATO is attacking Russia (in preparation of an invasion or whatever) works. And then it filters down the chain of command, and it only needs one zealous commander who is willing to blow up the world for king and country to actually fire a nuke.
|
On February 27 2022 18:08 justanothertownie wrote:Show nested quote +On February 27 2022 17:39 KwarK wrote:On February 27 2022 17:23 TheLordofAwesome wrote:On February 27 2022 17:20 KwarK wrote:On February 27 2022 17:04 TheLordofAwesome wrote:On February 27 2022 16:54 KwarK wrote: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? 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. 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. Until they do. But then it is too late. The no fly zone is not comparable to the "countless" situations you are describing and Putins standing was not as dependent on them as it is in this case. I mean I am pretty sure at this point you are just arguing to be right and it is a pretty comfortable place to be in because you can be smug until you are wrong and when that point in time comes Noone will be left to ridicule you.
pretty much this. kwark theres literally no one in agreement with you on your position about no fly zones. just give it up
|
United States42009 Posts
I’m curious how the people who think we must treat Putin’s red lines with absolute respect and not engage him militarily reconcile that with the repeated violations of his other red lines and the ongoing active military intervention. My position is that the game is unchanged, absurd red lines (SWIFT cutoff = war) are obviously not valid and that you can get away with giving Ukrainians anti tank drones locked onto tanks with your satellites. That the west is already engaging him and that his bluffs have been called. But the consensus here is that we must not call his bluff or destroy his military hardware.
We already did both. It was fine because we didn’t go too far, we didn’t threaten Russia, just fucked with his shit in Ukraine. It wasn’t war because that’s not how war works anymore, declaring war and going all out “two countries enter one country leaves” isn’t a thing anymore. If fucking with him in Ukraine was a red line we’d have crossed it. If his red lines were where he said they were we’d know by now. A stronger stance could have been taken and should have been taken.
|
On February 27 2022 18:43 KwarK wrote:
I’m curious how the people who think we must treat Putin’s red lines with absolute respect and not engage him militarily reconcile that with the repeated violations of his other red lines and the ongoing active military intervention. My position is that the game is unchanged, absurd red lines (SWIFT cutoff = war) are obviously not valid and that you can get away with giving Ukrainians anti tank drones locked onto tanks with your satellites. That the west is already engaging him and that his bluffs have been called. But the consensus here is that we must not call his bluff or destroy his military hardware.
We already did both. It was fine because we didn’t go too far, we didn’t threaten Russia, just fucked with his shit in Ukraine. It wasn’t war because that’s not how war works anymore, declaring war and going all out “two countries enter one country leaves” isn’t a thing anymore. If fucking with him in Ukraine was a red line we’d have crossed it. If his red lines were where he said they were we’d know by now. A stronger stance could have been taken and should have been taken.
Because some red lines aren't equal and large scale armed conflict like an enforced nofly zone IS war and unprecedented, no matter how you want to call it instead.
|
On February 27 2022 18:49 justanothertownie wrote:Show nested quote +On February 27 2022 18:43 KwarK wrote:
I’m curious how the people who think we must treat Putin’s red lines with absolute respect and not engage him militarily reconcile that with the repeated violations of his other red lines and the ongoing active military intervention. My position is that the game is unchanged, absurd red lines (SWIFT cutoff = war) are obviously not valid and that you can get away with giving Ukrainians anti tank drones locked onto tanks with your satellites. That the west is already engaging him and that his bluffs have been called. But the consensus here is that we must not call his bluff or destroy his military hardware.
We already did both. It was fine because we didn’t go too far, we didn’t threaten Russia, just fucked with his shit in Ukraine. It wasn’t war because that’s not how war works anymore, declaring war and going all out “two countries enter one country leaves” isn’t a thing anymore. If fucking with him in Ukraine was a red line we’d have crossed it. If his red lines were where he said they were we’d know by now. A stronger stance could have been taken and should have been taken. Because some red lines aren't equal and large scale armed conflict like an enforced nofly zone IS war and unprecedented, no matter how you want to call it instead.
Plus the narrative of the war changes instantly if NATO troops engage Russian targets. One part of Putin's justification for the war has been securing Russian borders from NATO willing to destroy Russia. So far that's been completely ridiculous, but it becomes a much easier sell (at least domestically) as soon as NATO forces are engaging Russian troops, possibly inside Russian borders.
|
Hey guys, it was an awful night. Kharkiv is getting shelled once again, artillry landed somewhere half km away from our residential building. It's happening from 6 am till now 12 am.
Russian light armored vehicles entered the city and the fights are on the streets on some directions. Ukrainian army is trying to take control on the situation, so far ir's not clear what's gonna be next. There is a chance this day/night will decide everything locally
In addition, Belarus is sending their troops as well and today they gonna have a referendum regarding placement of russian nukes on belarus soil.
|
On February 27 2022 19:28 Dav1oN wrote:
Hey guys, it was an awful night. Kharkiv is getting shelled once again, artillry landed somewhere half km away from our residential building. It's happening from 6 am till now 12 am.
Russian light armored vehicles entered the city and the fights are on the streets on some directions. Ukrainian army is trying to take control on the situation, so far ir's not clear what's gonna be next. There is a chance this day/night will decide everything locally
In addition, Belarus is sending their troops as well and today they gonna have a referendum regarding placement of russian nukes on belarus soil. Damn, I can't even begin to envision what that must be like. My heart goes out to you, your family and everyone in Ukraine.
I wish the international community had been willing to stand with Ukraine more.
And above all, stay safe.
|
On February 27 2022 15:36 Mohdoo wrote:
Are there any countries are predicting will join NATO after Russia basically ranting about countries not being real countries? Finland is probably closer then ever before to joining NATO.
Haven't heard anything about how Moldova is feeling about it with the chance they will soon border 'Russia'.
Everyone else is pretty much already in NATO.
|
I bet Georgia wants in too
|
On February 27 2022 19:28 Dav1oN wrote:
Hey guys, it was an awful night. Kharkiv is getting shelled once again, artillry landed somewhere half km away from our residential building. It's happening from 6 am till now 12 am.
Russian light armored vehicles entered the city and the fights are on the streets on some directions. Ukrainian army is trying to take control on the situation, so far ir's not clear what's gonna be next. There is a chance this day/night will decide everything locally
In addition, Belarus is sending their troops as well and today they gonna have a referendum regarding placement of russian nukes on belarus soil.
Stay safe!!!
|
This is a big deal, right?
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2022-02-27/-putin-s-war-prompts-radical-rethink-for-scholz-and-germany
Chancellor Olaf Scholz announced plans to ramp up German defense spending, marking a profound shift in the country’s fiscal priorities in response to the Russian invasion of Ukraine.
Scholz in a special address to parliament on Sunday said Germany will invest 100 billion euros ($113 billion) this year in a special fund to modernize the country’s military and going forward will boost defense spending annually to more than 2% of gross domestic product.
Gratz Putin, you've turned decades of policy on its head in less than a week. I feel like there was a reason Germany was reluctant to ramp their military up, and it's not because they're bad at it. Perhaps the rest of the EU will follow, too.
I wish we didn't live in a world where this was necessary, but since we do, I'm very glad it's happening.
|
On February 27 2022 19:28 Dav1oN wrote:
Hey guys, it was an awful night. Kharkiv is getting shelled once again, artillry landed somewhere half km away from our residential building. It's happening from 6 am till now 12 am.
Russian light armored vehicles entered the city and the fights are on the streets on some directions. Ukrainian army is trying to take control on the situation, so far ir's not clear what's gonna be next. There is a chance this day/night will decide everything locally
In addition, Belarus is sending their troops as well and today they gonna have a referendum regarding placement of russian nukes on belarus soil.
Good luck man. I wish we could do something.
|
So according to the BBC live updates https://www.bbc.com/news/live/world-europe-60542877
Scholz just said that the German military budget will be increased by 100 bln euro ???
"Speaking at an emergency session of the German parliament he said €100 billion ($113 bn) will be added to Berlin's military budget this year."
This must be a typo (or a funny use the phrase "added to the budget") and actually going to raise the budget to 100 bln total, right? An increase of 100 bln would make the German military budget ~40% larger than that of the UK and France combined. This seems insane.
Edit: OK per ninja-post above he meant a 100 bln one-off fund coupled with a much more moderate annual budget increase.
This is not insane. I hope they spend half as much effort on the administration of this fund as they do on their football program and actually get some serious benefit out of it.
Anyway seems overdue and should have happened after 2014, but I am glad they are finally stepping up. I am paranoid/worried that there is an unlikely but plausible universe in which Tucker Carlson or Trump or whoever wins the American elections in 2024 or 2028 and decides to trade Russia part of Europe in return for something to do with China. There being enough forces in Europe to deter Putin with or without the Americans can only be a good thing.
|
On February 27 2022 20:35 Belisarius wrote:This is a big deal, right? https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2022-02-27/-putin-s-war-prompts-radical-rethink-for-scholz-and-germanyShow nested quote +Chancellor Olaf Scholz announced plans to ramp up German defense spending, marking a profound shift in the country’s fiscal priorities in response to the Russian invasion of Ukraine.
Scholz in a special address to parliament on Sunday said Germany will invest 100 billion euros ($113 billion) this year in a special fund to modernize the country’s military and going forward will boost defense spending annually to more than 2% of gross domestic product. Gratz Putin, you've turned decades of policy on its head in less than a week. I feel like there was a reason Germany was reluctant to ramp their military up, and it's not because they're bad at it. Perhaps the rest of the EU will follow, too. I wish we didn't live in a world where this was necessary, but since we do, I'm very glad it's happening.
Yes it's significant. This invasion is a massive strategic error for Putin. Don't think it could've gone any worse. He's managed to unite the EU (and US/UK), is making the EU rearm themselves while running his own economy into the ground. In addition the invasion is not even going well and shows that the Russian army is in worse shape than many people thought.
|
On February 27 2022 20:45 KlaCkoN wrote:
This must be a typo (or a funny use the phrase "added to the budget") and actually going to raise the budget to 100 bln total, right? An increase of 100 bln would make the German military budget ~40% larger than that of the UK and France combined. This seems insane.
I think the +100bn is a one-off, but there's also a binding guarantee that the defense budget will not drop below 2%, which is significant in itself. It's a lot of resources however you look at it.
|
On February 27 2022 20:50 Belisarius wrote:Show nested quote +On February 27 2022 20:45 KlaCkoN wrote:
This must be a typo (or a funny use the phrase "added to the budget") and actually going to raise the budget to 100 bln total, right? An increase of 100 bln would make the German military budget ~40% larger than that of the UK and France combined. This seems insane. I think the +100bn is a one-off, but there's also a binding guarantee that the defense budget will not drop below 2%, which is significant in itself. It's a lot of resources however you look at it.
Yep I saw your Reuters link. That makes a lot more sense. Cheers!
|
Yes it's a big deal. 100 billion in a separate fund for modernization, apparently "over" 2% in military spending. Also North Stream 2 is dead, two new terminals for LNG (liquid natural gas), weapon support for Ukraine. Congratulations to Putin for pushing decades worth of energy and defence reform through in a weekend.
|
On February 27 2022 21:03 Nyxisto wrote:
Yes it's a big deal. 100 billion in a separate fund for modernization, apparently "over" 2% in military spending. Also North Stream 2 is dead, two new terminals for LNG (liquid natural gas), weapon support for Ukraine. Congratulations to Putin for pushing decades worth of energy and defence reform through in a weekend.
I understand Germany was probably abstaining due to history probably, but it was long overdue though... Germany has been soft for way too long, so I'm glad Germany is coming to its senses. Schröder in Gazprom, buying more Russian gas (no diversification), sending 5000 helmets to Ukraine initially for help isn't what I expect from a powerful country like Germany. Overall, I think these are all good decisions (what you cited) from my point of view as an external person.
Edit: Granted that Bulgaria isn't doing enough for Ukraine either. Agreeing on sanctions against Russia is all cool, but I think we should be sending weaponry as much as we can to help Ukraine, so I'm not pointing fingers at one country.
|
On February 27 2022 21:03 Nyxisto wrote:
Yes it's a big deal. 100 billion in a separate fund for modernization, apparently "over" 2% in military spending. Also North Stream 2 is dead, two new terminals for LNG (liquid natural gas), weapon support for Ukraine. Congratulations to Putin for pushing decades worth of energy and defence reform through in a weekend.
It should really be mentioned how big this spending increase is. Currently, Germany is spending 1.5% GDP on defense. So that is more than a 30% permanent increase, minimum.
And besides those enormous political turnarounds, the public opinion did pretty much a 180 and a decent amount of political division (highly supported by Russia over the last decade) has evaporated overnight.
Germany always had this huge public perception of "Why are we even with the US? The Russians are so nice, we are just being mean to them." There were polls with there was basically an even split between "We should align with Russia", "We shouldn't align with anyone" and "We should stay with NATO".
This is completely gone. Even the far left and right are backpedaling (they still won't agree with increased defense spending, but their Putin love has quickly turned into endless variations of how they sadly misread Putin and condemnation).
Even the edgiest news sources never missing a chance to take opposing positions just for the sake of it have turned on the same very clear message of Germany having to stand up against Putin with all means possible.
Putins calculation may have worked in the US, where Republicans still prefer to fight Democrats over external enemies. But in Germany just looking at those last days... Oh boy, you shouldn't have poked that giant the wrong way.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
