EPTThis seems just as bad as the no-fly zone everyone agreed would cause nuclear annihilation... I really hope Erdogan backs off.
European Politico-economics QA Mega-thread - Page 1350
| 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. | ||
|
KlaCkoN
Sweden1661 Posts
This seems just as bad as the no-fly zone everyone agreed would cause nuclear annihilation... I really hope Erdogan backs off. | ||
|
Longshank
1648 Posts
On February 28 2022 01:18 Fildun wrote: All the sanctions are already in place anyway, there's not too much reason to stop now. Well, one reason would be to get the sanctions to stop/being reduced? | ||
|
LegalLord
United Kingdom13775 Posts
On February 28 2022 01:28 KlaCkoN wrote: People on r/europe are now claiming that Turkey has closed the Bosporus to Russian ships (with links to Turkish newspapers). Are they actually going to try to sink Russian ships sailing through the strait? If they do sink them could they still invoke article 5 when Russia retaliates? This seems just as bad as the no-fly zone everyone agreed would cause nuclear annihilation... I really hope Erdogan backs off. As posted a page or two ago, they invoked a rule that allows Turkey to block warships not belonging to the Black Sea fleet to pass under current wartime conditions. I don't think there was any attempt to either enforce or contest the rule. My guess is it's a response to the "strategic force readiness" which technically means certain particular warships that have a strategic (nuclear) component. Given that nuclear high-alert is a big deal, maybe the response is to avoid a nuclear warship entering the Black Sea. | ||
|
mahrgell
Germany3943 Posts
On February 28 2022 01:28 KlaCkoN wrote: People on r/europe are now claiming that Turkey has closed the Bosporus to Russian ships (with links to Turkish newspapers). Are they actually going to try to sink Russian ships sailing through the strait? If they do sink them could they still invoke article 5 when Russia retaliates? This seems just as bad as the no-fly zone everyone agreed would cause nuclear annihilation... I really hope Erdogan backs off. Turkey declared that they consider this a war under the Montreaux convention. And that they COULD therefore take steps... Without officially detailing those steps. Now of course everyone is filling in the blanks, because the Montreaux convention would allow them to block military ships. And there is a point of contention if ships of the Black Seas Fleet would still be allowed, which would mean most Russian ships in the area. So there are 4 steps: 1) Turkey acknowledges a situation where the Montreax convention would allow restrictions -> This happened 2) They decide to act on it -> They said they could without saying they will. 3) They have figure out the status of the Black Seas fleet, and most neutral experts claim it would still have a free passage. -> they didnt specifiy at all what they meant 4) They would have to enforce it. PS: and this is only talking about military ships, civil ships are not concerned. So talking about "Russian ships" is quite an exagerration. | ||
|
Vivax
21972 Posts
On February 28 2022 00:41 Longshank wrote: I think it's important that Putin is given an out or this will turn into another drawn out Syria. Or escalate to really scary stuff. I don't think he will ever be able to admit defeat. The only possible solution I can see right now is that the eastern separist regions are given independence/joins Russia after a certain time. Ukraine on the other hand would be free to join Nato/EU. With the right propaganda I believe he'd be able to sell that as a win domestically. Ukraine on the other hand hasn't been in control of those regions for a decade. Their future was uncertain even before this invasion. Joining Nato would give them long-term security they desperately need/want. It wouldn't be fair or just but it's impossible to see a happy end to rhis. The SWIFT freeze is, aside from plain robbery, a declaration that trade between Russia and NATO countries is dead and buried for probably forever. Considering the consequences on the energy trade, that's likely to cause that energy control measures go in place. Rolling blackouts and the like. According to Putin himself his main goal is to capture the elements of the Ukr. military who kept attacking the separatist regions and punish them. I don't think he is ever going to accept the possibility of nukes right at the RU border. Same as the US not wanting rockets in Cuba back then. Do you believe that's an unreasonable demand? | ||
|
Biff The Understudy
France7886 Posts
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/ukraine-russia-taliban-casualties-concern-b2023250.html?amp | ||
|
Mafe
Germany5966 Posts
| ||
|
Fildun
Netherlands4122 Posts
On February 28 2022 01:32 Longshank wrote: Well, one reason would be to get the sanctions to stop/being reduced? I would find it very surprising for the sanctions to be reduced for as long as Putin is in charge, even if there would be peace at this very moment. The current negotiations are between Ukraine and Russia directly, the lessening of sanctions cannot play a part in the negotiations. Now if there was a more global peace talk sure I could see it happening, but for now this is not an option. | ||
|
Gorsameth
Netherlands21664 Posts
On February 28 2022 01:38 Vivax wrote: Which makes capturing Ukraine a weird move since it moves Russia's border closer to NATO and the missiles he is apparently afraid of.The SWIFT freeze is, aside from plain robbery, a declaration that trade between Russia and NATO countries is dead and buried for probably forever. Considering the consequences on the energy trade, that's likely to cause that energy control measures go in place. Rolling blackouts and the like. According to Putin himself his main goal is to capture the elements of the Ukr. military who kept attacking the separatist regions and punish them. I don't think he is ever going to accept the possibility of nukes right at the RU border. Same as the US not wanting rockets in Cuba back then. Do you believe that's an unreasonable demand? Not to mention the entire self feeding loop of Russia being hostile > neighbours wanting protecting > Russia gets hostile over NATO expansion. NATO would not be moving east if those countries didn't need protection from Russia in the first place. If this was actual worry about NATO and not Putin's legacy Russia could have negotiated a deal where Ukraine could join NATO but that there would be no additional NATO military placed in Ukraine. So Ukraine would be safe but Russia would not feel additionally threatened. | ||
|
ggrrg
Bulgaria2716 Posts
On February 28 2022 01:38 Vivax wrote: The SWIFT freeze is, aside from plain robbery, a declaration that trade between Russia and NATO countries is dead and buried for probably forever. Considering the consequences on the energy trade, that's likely to cause that energy control measures go in place. Rolling blackouts and the like. According to Putin himself his main goal is to capture the elements of the Ukr. military who kept attacking the separatist regions and punish them. I don't think he is ever going to accept the possibility of nukes right at the RU border. Same as the US not wanting rockets in Cuba back then. Do you believe that's an unreasonable demand? Yes, it is a unreasonable demand that is just a pretext to be able to meddle with the internal politics of countries Russia feels should belong to their sphere of influence. It is not 1962 anymore. Inbetween American ICBMs and nuclearly armed submarines, all major population centers of Russia can be struck anytime anyway. Not to mention that it makes no real difference if nukes are stationed in Ukraine or only in Turkey and Germany. Geographic proximity has far less relevance today than it had half a century ago. | ||
|
Jockmcplop
United Kingdom9636 Posts
On February 28 2022 01:41 Biff The Understudy wrote: Ok, so, anyway, talibans are calling for calm. That awkward moment where you can’t diffrrentiate satire and reality. https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/ukraine-russia-taliban-casualties-concern-b2023250.html?amp The taliban aren't just a bunch of crazed terrorists. They want to enact their dystopian dictatorship in a controlled, orderly fashion, and I'm sure they would like Putin to do the same. | ||
|
KlaCkoN
Sweden1661 Posts
On February 28 2022 01:37 mahrgell wrote: Turkey declared that they consider this a war under the Montreaux convention. And that they COULD therefore take steps... Without officially detailing those steps. Now of course everyone is filling in the blanks, because the Montreaux convention would allow them to block military ships. And there is a point of contention if ships of the Black Seas Fleet would still be allowed, which would mean most Russian ships in the area. So there are 4 steps: 1) Turkey acknowledges a situation where the Montreax convention would allow restrictions -> This happened 2) They decide to act on it -> They said they could without saying they will. 3) They have figure out the status of the Black Seas fleet, and most neutral experts claim it would still have a free passage. -> they didnt specifiy at all what they meant 4) They would have to enforce it. PS: and this is only talking about military ships, civil ships are not concerned. So talking about "Russian ships" is quite an exagerration. Thanks! It's good to know that there is still some sense in everything. Also not having to worry about nuclear war is nice. Problem with not having any errands to run on a sunday. Too much doom scrolling. | ||
|
LegalLord
United Kingdom13775 Posts
On February 28 2022 01:17 Jerubaal wrote: What was his objective anyway? Seems like he got a lot just by annexing those two eastern provinces. Not annexed; declared independent. Client states but not part of Russia. Before they were merely unrecognized breakaway regions with unofficial support. Used for the purpose of ensuring that in the short term, Ukraine has a "contested territory" issue that prevents joining NATO. The objective is a little hard to piece together because the response is vastly disproportionate to what could be done to solve it, but basically for various reasons that would take a while to run through, Putin (and probably any other Russian president really) sees Ukraine being a member of NATO as an existential threat. The Minsk agreements negotiated back around 2015 were meant as a long-term fix but never actually got implemented, creating a frozen conflict situation. Something about the current turn of events really bothered Putin to the point that a military operation was the approach he took. I don't really know what; maybe if we're still alive we'll learn in the declassification of today + 20 years of the relevant info. I will say that it was clear that negotiations were absolutely reaching a dead end and it very much seemed like Russia's concerns were not being taken seriously by the other parties. Or they completely misread to what extent it was actually a problem. Some of the individuals I talked to who are a fair bit more Soviet than I were really, really disturbed by Zelensky's suggestion that Ukraine should pursue nuclear weapons. Not like anyone else would let them do so, but if that threat were real then might that be a reason to be disturbed? And NATO membership could, in the long run, confer the ability to deploy nuclear weapons there. Again, it doesn't all add up because there was a solution that didn't involve actual war here and the result of the open military conflict in Europe is necessarily going to be that every European country is going to be deeply shaken to the core and respond accordingly. The "Ukraine being part of NATO" issue is absolutely the driving factor behind everything that happened. | ||
|
Biff The Understudy
France7886 Posts
On February 28 2022 01:38 Vivax wrote: The SWIFT freeze is, aside from plain robbery, a declaration that trade between Russia and NATO countries is dead and buried for probably forever. Considering the consequences on the energy trade, that's likely to cause that energy control measures go in place. Rolling blackouts and the like. According to Putin himself his main goal is to capture the elements of the Ukr. military who kept attacking the separatist regions and punish them. I don't think he is ever going to accept the possibility of nukes right at the RU border. Same as the US not wanting rockets in Cuba back then. Do you believe that's an unreasonable demand? lol no one cares about having nukes far or close what are you talking about. Everyone has icbm that travel half the globe and strike you at hypersonic speed from space. Not to mention nuclear submarines. Putin is obviously lying. Invading countries because look how mean they are to that minority we got to defend is how Hitler justified all his wars and is the oldest trick in the book. | ||
|
LegalLord
United Kingdom13775 Posts
On February 28 2022 01:42 Mafe wrote: At this point, what would be a reason for the Black Sea fleet to leave the black sea? During "peace time", was it a regular occurence that the fleet passed the bosporus, or is all of this merely a symbolic debate? Ships travel a lot. It's kind of the point. On February 28 2022 01:48 ggrrg wrote: It is not 1962 anymore. Inbetween American ICBMs and nuclearly armed submarines, all major population centers of Russia can be struck anytime anyway. Not to mention that it makes no real difference if nukes are stationed in Ukraine or only in Turkey and Germany. Geographic proximity has far less relevance today than it had half a century ago. It is exactly like 1962, or perhaps even more important. There's a big difference between a nuclear missile you do detect in time to respond, and one where you do not. ICBMs can be launched from anywhere, yes, but with a 30 minute time to target. Short-range missiles are deadly but have... short range; you usually have to place them right where they are going to launch to. And intermediate range missiles have a deadly mix of range and time to target that make up a good reason for why they were banned for over 30 years up until the Trump era. | ||
|
TheTenthDoc
United States9561 Posts
On February 28 2022 01:47 Gorsameth wrote: Which makes capturing Ukraine a weird move since it moves Russia's border closer to NATO and the missiles he is apparently afraid of. Beyond lip service the Russian powers-that-be won't view Ukraine or its people as part of Russia, even if they successfully conquer it, so I don't think that really factors in if that were their thought process (though as others have pointed out, it almost certainly isn't). If a post-conquest Ukraine were reduced to rubble radioactive or otherwise, Putin and the oligarchs would not give a shit as long as their estates were intact. That's why they're, you know, willing to reduce it to rubble and kill their "brothers." | ||
KwarK
United States42637 Posts
On February 28 2022 01:28 KlaCkoN wrote: People on r/europe are now claiming that Turkey has closed the Bosporus to Russian ships (with links to Turkish newspapers). Are they actually going to try to sink Russian ships sailing through the strait? If they do sink them could they still invoke article 5 when Russia retaliates? This seems just as bad as the no-fly zone everyone agreed would cause nuclear annihilation... I really hope Erdogan backs off. Same shit that I was talking about before. It has a potential to escalate but isn't in itself an escalation. Russia would have to decide to attempt to force the straits. If they did Turkey would have to decide how to respond to that. If they responded with their own fleet both commanders would then have to decide to open fire. Plenty of opportunity for shit to not hit the fan. Additionally it essentially just limits the Black Sea fleet to operations in the Black Sea which is where Ukraine is so Russia has no tactical need to use the straits right now. | ||
|
KwarK
United States42637 Posts
On February 28 2022 01:38 Vivax wrote: The SWIFT freeze is, aside from plain robbery, a declaration that trade between Russia and NATO countries is dead and buried for probably forever. Considering the consequences on the energy trade, that's likely to cause that energy control measures go in place. Rolling blackouts and the like. According to Putin himself his main goal is to capture the elements of the Ukr. military who kept attacking the separatist regions and punish them. I don't think he is ever going to accept the possibility of nukes right at the RU border. Same as the US not wanting rockets in Cuba back then. Do you believe that's an unreasonable demand? Yes. You can't make demands of sovereign nations. Also he already had an agreement for a denuclearized Ukraine in exchange for respecting Ukrainian national sovereignty. An agreement he already broke. That's why they're trying to get into NATO. The argument that Putin only wants that thing that he already had and threw away doesn't add up. | ||
|
Vivax
21972 Posts
On February 28 2022 01:47 Gorsameth wrote: Which makes capturing Ukraine a weird move since it moves Russia's border closer to NATO and the missiles he is apparently afraid of. Not to mention the entire self feeding loop of Russia being hostile > neighbours wanting protecting > Russia gets hostile over NATO expansion. NATO would not be moving east if those countries didn't need protection from Russia in the first place. If this was actual worry about NATO and not Putin's legacy Russia could have negotiated a deal where Ukraine could join NATO but that there would be no additional NATO military placed in Ukraine. So Ukraine would be safe but Russia would not feel additionally threatened. D'oh, happy birthday! And maybe you just mentioned a reason why he won't simply annex Ukraine. Since his concern is not having weapons between him and NATO, he rhetorically disallowed himself to move his own border westwards. Though I don't pretend to know for sure what will happen. I can only imagine what a nuclear threat control room looks like but the time in which you hit an enemy arsenal probably matters to those working there. | ||
|
ggrrg
Bulgaria2716 Posts
On February 28 2022 01:58 LegalLord wrote: Ships travel a lot. It's kind of the point. It is exactly like 1962, or perhaps even more important. There's a big difference between a nuclear missile you do detect in time to respond, and one where you do not. ICBMs can be launched from anywhere, yes, but with a 30 minute time to target. Short-range missiles are deadly but have... short range; you usually have to place them right where they are going to launch to. And intermediate range missiles have a deadly mix of range and time to target that make up a good reason for why they were banned for over 30 years up until the Trump era. You really think a couple of hours travel time make any difference at all? How much of the population of NYC or Moscow can you evacuate in a few hours? And even if you evacuated the entire population, the cities will still be reduced to rubble. Nevermind that in a MAD scenario the entire earth gets turned into a barren wasteland anyway. Proximity and strike times only make a difference in a theoretical scenario when you are able to disable the enemy's second strike ability. With Russia officially having over 5000 nuclear warheads spread through the vast nothingness of the country and the depths of the earth's oceans, disabling Russia's second strike ability is outside the realm of possiblity. | ||
| ||
