|
NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets.
Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source. |
On May 19 2022 07:19 Gahlo wrote:Show nested quote +On May 19 2022 06:08 Artesimo wrote:Ukraine is not gonna invade russia for 2 reasons: it would hurt their international support because it can be argued that it would no longer be self defence. In addition to that, according to russian nuclear doctrine, use of nukes is permitted, when russias existence is threatened. I doubt ukraine wants to play chicken with either of those things. In regards to russias nuclear deterrence, this interesting assessment is somewhat related https://www.understandingwar.org/backgrounder/russian-annexation-occupied-ukraine-putin’s-unacceptable-“-ramp”very TLDR: russias current strategy could seek to grab as much territory as possible, integrate it into russia and then use the nuclear deterrence according to their doctrine to keep ukraine from trying to retake it. Unless Ukraine would be on the way to take Moscow, that'd be quite the justification to try and make.
I don't think you need your capital to be threatened to argue the existence of your state is at stake. currently, ukraine is not at great risk of stopping to exist, but I would still call the russian invasion a threat to their existence.
And in general, apart from the usual suspects, I doubt international support would be big for ukraine invading russia (as in russia russia, not russian held territory that belongs to ukraine). And at the end of the day, all you need is that it gives russia something they can present as a legitimate reason to use their nukes, to have a great deterrent. I think even in the situation the ISW talks about, its less about russia actually using nukes, and more about russia betting on ukraine not willing to gamble on this. And I can see how giving russia something they can use as a legitimisation, at least internally, creating enough of a risk that ukraine rather not going in on it.
Basically without that scenario, we have a pretty good reason to feel comfortable about nukes not being used. After that, I think the risk is still pretty low, but its no longer completely out of the realm of possibilities. Still unlikely though.
|
On May 19 2022 07:58 Artesimo wrote:Show nested quote +On May 19 2022 07:19 Gahlo wrote:On May 19 2022 06:08 Artesimo wrote:Ukraine is not gonna invade russia for 2 reasons: it would hurt their international support because it can be argued that it would no longer be self defence. In addition to that, according to russian nuclear doctrine, use of nukes is permitted, when russias existence is threatened. I doubt ukraine wants to play chicken with either of those things. In regards to russias nuclear deterrence, this interesting assessment is somewhat related https://www.understandingwar.org/backgrounder/russian-annexation-occupied-ukraine-putin’s-unacceptable-“-ramp”very TLDR: russias current strategy could seek to grab as much territory as possible, integrate it into russia and then use the nuclear deterrence according to their doctrine to keep ukraine from trying to retake it. Unless Ukraine would be on the way to take Moscow, that'd be quite the justification to try and make. I don't think you need your capital to be threatened to argue the existence of your state is at stake. currently, ukraine is not at great risk of stopping to exist, but I would still call the russian invasion a threat to their existence. And in general, apart from the usual suspects, I doubt international support would be big for ukraine invading russia (as in russia russia, not russian held territory that belongs to ukraine). And at the end of the day, all you need is that it gives russia something they can present as a legitimate reason to use their nukes, to have a great deterrent. I think even in the situation the ISW talks about, its less about russia actually using nukes, and more about russia betting on ukraine not willing to gamble on this. And I can see how giving russia something they can use as a legitimisation, at least internally, creating enough of a risk that ukraine rather not going in on it. Basically without that scenario, we have a pretty good reason to feel comfortable about nukes not being used. After that, I think the risk is still pretty low, but its no longer completely out of the realm of possibilities. Still unlikely though.
The Ukrainian capital has been under attack multiple times in this war. The response has been conventional warfare. Don't know if Ukrain has any NBCs, but regardless. Comparing that to "We're losing literally any territory, fire the nukes!" is silly. It's stupid. Ukraine knows it's a dumb response. Russia knows it's a dumb response. The world, which is already pissed off enough at Russia as it is right now, won't just go "Yeah, that's seems like a fair and reasonable response."
|
On May 19 2022 09:02 Gahlo wrote:Show nested quote +On May 19 2022 07:58 Artesimo wrote:On May 19 2022 07:19 Gahlo wrote:On May 19 2022 06:08 Artesimo wrote:Ukraine is not gonna invade russia for 2 reasons: it would hurt their international support because it can be argued that it would no longer be self defence. In addition to that, according to russian nuclear doctrine, use of nukes is permitted, when russias existence is threatened. I doubt ukraine wants to play chicken with either of those things. In regards to russias nuclear deterrence, this interesting assessment is somewhat related https://www.understandingwar.org/backgrounder/russian-annexation-occupied-ukraine-putin’s-unacceptable-“-ramp”very TLDR: russias current strategy could seek to grab as much territory as possible, integrate it into russia and then use the nuclear deterrence according to their doctrine to keep ukraine from trying to retake it. Unless Ukraine would be on the way to take Moscow, that'd be quite the justification to try and make. I don't think you need your capital to be threatened to argue the existence of your state is at stake. currently, ukraine is not at great risk of stopping to exist, but I would still call the russian invasion a threat to their existence. And in general, apart from the usual suspects, I doubt international support would be big for ukraine invading russia (as in russia russia, not russian held territory that belongs to ukraine). And at the end of the day, all you need is that it gives russia something they can present as a legitimate reason to use their nukes, to have a great deterrent. I think even in the situation the ISW talks about, its less about russia actually using nukes, and more about russia betting on ukraine not willing to gamble on this. And I can see how giving russia something they can use as a legitimisation, at least internally, creating enough of a risk that ukraine rather not going in on it. Basically without that scenario, we have a pretty good reason to feel comfortable about nukes not being used. After that, I think the risk is still pretty low, but its no longer completely out of the realm of possibilities. Still unlikely though. The Ukrainian capital has been under attack multiple times in this war. The response has been conventional warfare. Don't know if Ukrain has any NBCs, but regardless. Comparing that to "We're losing literally any territory, fire the nukes!" is silly. It's stupid. Ukraine knows it's a dumb response. Russia knows it's a dumb response. The world, which is already pissed off enough at Russia as it is right now, won't just go "Yeah, that's seems like a fair and reasonable response."
I was specifically comparing it to the CURRENT status of the war. Its not about it being a likely scenario that russia uses nukes its the difference between 'this does not satisfy the criteria set in russian doctrine for the use if nuclear weapons' and 'this might fit the criteria' and the question if one would want to risk the latter scenario in the slightest.
And if the ISW sees it as a possible bluff that russia might want to pull, that is good enough for me.
|
If Ukraine goes into Russia using western intelligence, weapons, and money it pretty much turns them into naked mercenaries for the west against Russia (with understandable motivations).
As long as it is on arguably Ukrainian land it's still disputable whether it is functionally a proxy war of the West against Russia exploiting Ukrainians and Russians as cannon fodder to bleed out Russia's economy (and/or ultimately for regime change in Russia).
|
On May 19 2022 09:10 Artesimo wrote:Show nested quote +On May 19 2022 09:02 Gahlo wrote:On May 19 2022 07:58 Artesimo wrote:On May 19 2022 07:19 Gahlo wrote:On May 19 2022 06:08 Artesimo wrote:Ukraine is not gonna invade russia for 2 reasons: it would hurt their international support because it can be argued that it would no longer be self defence. In addition to that, according to russian nuclear doctrine, use of nukes is permitted, when russias existence is threatened. I doubt ukraine wants to play chicken with either of those things. In regards to russias nuclear deterrence, this interesting assessment is somewhat related https://www.understandingwar.org/backgrounder/russian-annexation-occupied-ukraine-putin’s-unacceptable-“-ramp”very TLDR: russias current strategy could seek to grab as much territory as possible, integrate it into russia and then use the nuclear deterrence according to their doctrine to keep ukraine from trying to retake it. Unless Ukraine would be on the way to take Moscow, that'd be quite the justification to try and make. I don't think you need your capital to be threatened to argue the existence of your state is at stake. currently, ukraine is not at great risk of stopping to exist, but I would still call the russian invasion a threat to their existence. And in general, apart from the usual suspects, I doubt international support would be big for ukraine invading russia (as in russia russia, not russian held territory that belongs to ukraine). And at the end of the day, all you need is that it gives russia something they can present as a legitimate reason to use their nukes, to have a great deterrent. I think even in the situation the ISW talks about, its less about russia actually using nukes, and more about russia betting on ukraine not willing to gamble on this. And I can see how giving russia something they can use as a legitimisation, at least internally, creating enough of a risk that ukraine rather not going in on it. Basically without that scenario, we have a pretty good reason to feel comfortable about nukes not being used. After that, I think the risk is still pretty low, but its no longer completely out of the realm of possibilities. Still unlikely though. The Ukrainian capital has been under attack multiple times in this war. The response has been conventional warfare. Don't know if Ukrain has any NBCs, but regardless. Comparing that to "We're losing literally any territory, fire the nukes!" is silly. It's stupid. Ukraine knows it's a dumb response. Russia knows it's a dumb response. The world, which is already pissed off enough at Russia as it is right now, won't just go "Yeah, that's seems like a fair and reasonable response." I was specifically comparing it to the CURRENT status of the war. Its not about it being a likely scenario that russia uses nukes its the difference between 'this does not satisfy the criteria set in russian doctrine for the use if nuclear weapons' and 'this might fit the criteria' and the question if one would want to risk the latter scenario in the slightest. And if the ISW sees it as a possible bluff that russia might want to pull, that is good enough for me.
It doesn't even remotely fit the criteria though. Say Ukraine was to take back Crimea, which as far as I'm aware both parties consider "theirs", it isn't an existential threat to the Russian state.
|
Canada11268 Posts
And it may be the case that liberating the rest of eastern Ukraine, would best occur by cutting of the supply lines to Belgorod. However, I suspect they won't outside of artillery and special forces (and yolo helicopter raids) until Russia begins general conscription- then you might as well.
|
Russian nuclear doctrine barely matters anyway. Only two things matter: whether Putin gives the order and whether his order is followed.
Sure, the chain of command is slightly more likely to falter if Putin goes against long-established doctrine, but if such a point is reached the generals involved will probably be more worried about their lives than about using the order as an opportunity to stage a coup.
|
On May 19 2022 06:08 Artesimo wrote:Ukraine is not gonna invade russia for 2 reasons: it would hurt their international support because it can be argued that it would no longer be self defence. In addition to that, according to russian nuclear doctrine, use of nukes is permitted, when russias existence is threatened. I doubt ukraine wants to play chicken with either of those things. In regards to russias nuclear deterrence, this interesting assessment is somewhat related https://www.understandingwar.org/backgrounder/russian-annexation-occupied-ukraine-putin’s-unacceptable-“-ramp”very TLDR: russias current strategy could seek to grab as much territory as possible, integrate it into russia and then use the nuclear deterrence according to their doctrine to keep ukraine from trying to retake it.
sorry to interrupt ,I don't know for what reason you words remind me of some situations in 1939~1941
|
On May 19 2022 09:12 GreenHorizons wrote:
If Ukraine goes into Russia using western intelligence, weapons, and money it pretty much turns them into naked mercenaries for the west against Russia (with understandable motivations).
As long as it is on arguably Ukrainian land it's still disputable whether it is functionally a proxy war of the West against Russia exploiting Ukrainians and Russians as cannon fodder to bleed out Russia's economy (and/or ultimately for regime change in Russia).
Ah, yes. This war has clearly been instigated by the west to bleed the Russian economy dry. On flimsy claims about "arguably" Ukrainian land. What a disgusting post.
|
On May 19 2022 10:22 Sbrubbles wrote:
Russian nuclear doctrine barely matters anyway. Only two things matter: whether Putin gives the order and whether his order is followed.
Sure, the chain of command is slightly more likely to falter if Putin goes against long-established doctrine, but if such a point is reached the generals involved will probably be more worried about their lives than about using the order as an opportunity to stage a coup.
I think this needs to be more prominent. Way too many people care about what excuses Putin could find to do stuff if we do other stuff.
This does not matter. If Putin wants to do a thing, he will find an excuse. He found an excuse for this invasion, after all, based on basically nothing at all.
Putin has no problem with lying, staging or making up events to justify what he wants to do.
|
On May 19 2022 10:31 fakovski wrote:Show nested quote +On May 19 2022 06:08 Artesimo wrote:Ukraine is not gonna invade russia for 2 reasons: it would hurt their international support because it can be argued that it would no longer be self defence. In addition to that, according to russian nuclear doctrine, use of nukes is permitted, when russias existence is threatened. I doubt ukraine wants to play chicken with either of those things. In regards to russias nuclear deterrence, this interesting assessment is somewhat related https://www.understandingwar.org/backgrounder/russian-annexation-occupied-ukraine-putin’s-unacceptable-“-ramp”very TLDR: russias current strategy could seek to grab as much territory as possible, integrate it into russia and then use the nuclear deterrence according to their doctrine to keep ukraine from trying to retake it. sorry to interrupt ,I don't know for what reason you words remind me of some situations in 1939~1941
Either you clarify your position or you stop making ominous sounding nothing post. In which way does the current situation compare to anything from a time where nukes did not exist?
|
On May 19 2022 09:12 GreenHorizons wrote:
If Ukraine goes into Russia using western intelligence, weapons, and money it pretty much turns them into naked mercenaries for the west against Russia (with understandable motivations).
As long as it is on arguably Ukrainian land it's still disputable whether it is functionally a proxy war of the West against Russia exploiting Ukrainians and Russians as cannon fodder to bleed out Russia's economy (and/or ultimately for regime change in Russia).
Come on man, you can bring up the legitimate question about the validity of a counterattack on Russia without shifting blame for the war to your enemy number one, murica.
|
Russian Federation605 Posts
On May 19 2022 06:08 Artesimo wrote:Ukraine is not gonna invade russia for 2 reasons: it would hurt their international support because it can be argued that it would no longer be self defence. In addition to that, according to russian nuclear doctrine, use of nukes is permitted, when russias existence is threatened. I doubt ukraine wants to play chicken with either of those things. In regards to russias nuclear deterrence, this interesting assessment is somewhat related https://www.understandingwar.org/backgrounder/russian-annexation-occupied-ukraine-putin’s-unacceptable-“-ramp”very TLDR: russias current strategy could seek to grab as much territory as possible, integrate it into russia and then use the nuclear deterrence according to their doctrine to keep ukraine from trying to retake it.
I doubt that it will come to "nuclear" part, but if Ukraine troops cross Russian border, it will give Putin the excuse to use conscripted troops against them, and probably even conduct a partial mobilization in a regions neighbouring Ukraine (Bryansk, Kursk, Belgorod, Voronezh regions). Thus far, Ukrainian news agencies officialy deny any claims about Ukrainian artillery shelling Russian villages on the border, and even the helicopter attack on oil storage near Belgorod they refer to as conducted by "unknown" helicopters. So I doubt Ukraine will move into the Russia itself.
Though the case with Crimea is interesting in this regard, as both parties consider the peninsula as their own, and Russia do maintain conscripted troops there (which are currently tasked with supply and repair efforts). If Ukraine manages to go there, I believe there could be mobilization at least in the Crimea itself.
And as the part of the current strategy - yeah, you are probably right. I would also add that Putin will probably try to fully control Lugansk and Donetsk regions in their administrative borders, before turning to negotiations or freezing the conflict.
I guess that's part of the reason why Ukraine is desperately holding to Severodonetsk and Lysychansk, despite the threat of encirclement there. Full control of even one of the regions could be seen as big media victory/loss for Russian/Ukrainian governments respectively.
On May 19 2022 15:39 Simberto wrote:
Putin has no problem with lying, staging or making up events to justify what he wants to do.
If everything was that simple, I would already be rolling on some BTR-70 to the Dniepr after being mobilized. But that's not the case. Even Russian society has a breaking point, hence no use of conscripts in Ukraine, as well as no economic or military mobilization to keep things calm internally and not to disturb a general population. If you dont watch news on TV or Internet, you probably won't guess here that this country is in full-scale war.
|
On May 19 2022 15:53 Broetchenholer wrote:Show nested quote +On May 19 2022 09:12 GreenHorizons wrote:
If Ukraine goes into Russia using western intelligence, weapons, and money it pretty much turns them into naked mercenaries for the west against Russia (with understandable motivations).
As long as it is on arguably Ukrainian land it's still disputable whether it is functionally a proxy war of the West against Russia exploiting Ukrainians and Russians as cannon fodder to bleed out Russia's economy (and/or ultimately for regime change in Russia). Come on man, you can bring up the legitimate question about the validity of a counterattack on Russia without shifting blame for the war to your enemy number one, murica.
I'm not shifting blame anywhere in that post.
I was pointing out that Ukraine invading Russia with Western supplied training, intelligence, weapons, and funding would make them pretty nakedly acting as mercenaries for the West in a proxy war against Russia (in which they would have their own understandable motivations) regardless of whether or not people already believe that's the case.
|
On May 19 2022 15:46 Broetchenholer wrote:Show nested quote +On May 19 2022 10:31 fakovski wrote:On May 19 2022 06:08 Artesimo wrote:Ukraine is not gonna invade russia for 2 reasons: it would hurt their international support because it can be argued that it would no longer be self defence. In addition to that, according to russian nuclear doctrine, use of nukes is permitted, when russias existence is threatened. I doubt ukraine wants to play chicken with either of those things. In regards to russias nuclear deterrence, this interesting assessment is somewhat related https://www.understandingwar.org/backgrounder/russian-annexation-occupied-ukraine-putin’s-unacceptable-“-ramp”very TLDR: russias current strategy could seek to grab as much territory as possible, integrate it into russia and then use the nuclear deterrence according to their doctrine to keep ukraine from trying to retake it. sorry to interrupt ,I don't know for what reason you words remind me of some situations in 1939~1941 Either you clarify your position or you stop making ominous sounding nothing post. In which way does the current situation compare to anything from a time where nukes did not exist?
Ah, do you really want me to make it specific, I mean you can not analyse a war with "reasons" , in 1939 the 3rd reich should not attack on poland because" it would hurt their international support because it can be argued that it would no longer be self defence", and should not start "babarossa" in 1941when she is still in the war in the west.By no analysis should germany ever choose the way, but ..we all know what happend.
|
On May 19 2022 19:00 fakovski wrote:Show nested quote +On May 19 2022 15:46 Broetchenholer wrote:On May 19 2022 10:31 fakovski wrote:On May 19 2022 06:08 Artesimo wrote:Ukraine is not gonna invade russia for 2 reasons: it would hurt their international support because it can be argued that it would no longer be self defence. In addition to that, according to russian nuclear doctrine, use of nukes is permitted, when russias existence is threatened. I doubt ukraine wants to play chicken with either of those things. In regards to russias nuclear deterrence, this interesting assessment is somewhat related https://www.understandingwar.org/backgrounder/russian-annexation-occupied-ukraine-putin’s-unacceptable-“-ramp”very TLDR: russias current strategy could seek to grab as much territory as possible, integrate it into russia and then use the nuclear deterrence according to their doctrine to keep ukraine from trying to retake it. sorry to interrupt ,I don't know for what reason you words remind me of some situations in 1939~1941 Either you clarify your position or you stop making ominous sounding nothing post. In which way does the current situation compare to anything from a time where nukes did not exist? Ah, do you really want me to make it specific, I mean you can not analyse a war with "reasons" , in 1939 the 3rd reich should not attack on poland because" it would hurt their international support because it can be argued that it would no longer be self defence", and should not start "babarossa" in 1941when she is still in the war in the west.By no analysis should germany ever choose the way, but ..we all know what happend.
Except there where reasons to do so: their whole lebensraum bullshit for russia and for poland it was a landbridge to east prussia as well as the historical 'claim' of greater germany. And the whole thing of germany not expecting the US to enter the war, hitler believing there can be a peace arranged with the UK and so on.
Ukraine does care about international support, because it is essential to their war effort. Nazi germany did not care for international support because it was not essential to their war effort and only tangentially relevant to their other endeavours.
|
On May 19 2022 19:00 fakovski wrote:Show nested quote +On May 19 2022 15:46 Broetchenholer wrote:On May 19 2022 10:31 fakovski wrote:On May 19 2022 06:08 Artesimo wrote:Ukraine is not gonna invade russia for 2 reasons: it would hurt their international support because it can be argued that it would no longer be self defence. In addition to that, according to russian nuclear doctrine, use of nukes is permitted, when russias existence is threatened. I doubt ukraine wants to play chicken with either of those things. In regards to russias nuclear deterrence, this interesting assessment is somewhat related https://www.understandingwar.org/backgrounder/russian-annexation-occupied-ukraine-putin’s-unacceptable-“-ramp”very TLDR: russias current strategy could seek to grab as much territory as possible, integrate it into russia and then use the nuclear deterrence according to their doctrine to keep ukraine from trying to retake it. sorry to interrupt ,I don't know for what reason you words remind me of some situations in 1939~1941 Either you clarify your position or you stop making ominous sounding nothing post. In which way does the current situation compare to anything from a time where nukes did not exist? Ah, do you really want me to make it specific, I mean you can not analyse a war with "reasons" , in 1939 the 3rd reich should not attack on poland because" it would hurt their international support because it can be argued that it would no longer be self defence", and should not start "babarossa" in 1941when she is still in the war in the west.By no analysis should germany ever choose the way, but ..we all know what happend.
You make the worst of arguments all over.
Germany in 1939 should not invade Poland. It was a foolish thing to do. As can be seen by the ensuing complete destruction of the German state. (Now, it can be argued that we got rid of the nazis this way, which is a very good thing, but from their position it was clearly foolish)
In a similar vein, the Russian attack on Ukraine was a foolish thing to do.
Or is your argument that countries sometimes do foolish things? Because that is trivial, no one doubts that.
You can absolutely analyze a war with reasons and rationality. Usually people want something when they go to war. There is no reason not to analyze the situation. The problem is that the situation are complex, and interact with the analysis to the point where analysis changes who people and countries react, which makes the whole problem really complicated.
|
On May 19 2022 19:00 fakovski wrote:Show nested quote +On May 19 2022 15:46 Broetchenholer wrote:On May 19 2022 10:31 fakovski wrote:On May 19 2022 06:08 Artesimo wrote:Ukraine is not gonna invade russia for 2 reasons: it would hurt their international support because it can be argued that it would no longer be self defence. In addition to that, according to russian nuclear doctrine, use of nukes is permitted, when russias existence is threatened. I doubt ukraine wants to play chicken with either of those things. In regards to russias nuclear deterrence, this interesting assessment is somewhat related https://www.understandingwar.org/backgrounder/russian-annexation-occupied-ukraine-putin’s-unacceptable-“-ramp”very TLDR: russias current strategy could seek to grab as much territory as possible, integrate it into russia and then use the nuclear deterrence according to their doctrine to keep ukraine from trying to retake it. sorry to interrupt ,I don't know for what reason you words remind me of some situations in 1939~1941 Either you clarify your position or you stop making ominous sounding nothing post. In which way does the current situation compare to anything from a time where nukes did not exist? Ah, do you really want me to make it specific, I mean you can not analyse a war with "reasons" , in 1939 the 3rd reich should not attack on poland because" it would hurt their international support because it can be argued that it would no longer be self defence", and should not start "babarossa" in 1941when she is still in the war in the west.By no analysis should germany ever choose the way, but ..we all know what happend.
We all know what happend afterwards, too.
I don't think Putins goal is to get Russian dividided into 4 parts and completely destroyed and bombs found in the ground 80 years later. But maybe it is. Who knows
|
On May 19 2022 20:28 Harris1st wrote:Show nested quote +On May 19 2022 19:00 fakovski wrote:On May 19 2022 15:46 Broetchenholer wrote:On May 19 2022 10:31 fakovski wrote:On May 19 2022 06:08 Artesimo wrote:Ukraine is not gonna invade russia for 2 reasons: it would hurt their international support because it can be argued that it would no longer be self defence. In addition to that, according to russian nuclear doctrine, use of nukes is permitted, when russias existence is threatened. I doubt ukraine wants to play chicken with either of those things. In regards to russias nuclear deterrence, this interesting assessment is somewhat related https://www.understandingwar.org/backgrounder/russian-annexation-occupied-ukraine-putin’s-unacceptable-“-ramp”very TLDR: russias current strategy could seek to grab as much territory as possible, integrate it into russia and then use the nuclear deterrence according to their doctrine to keep ukraine from trying to retake it. sorry to interrupt ,I don't know for what reason you words remind me of some situations in 1939~1941 Either you clarify your position or you stop making ominous sounding nothing post. In which way does the current situation compare to anything from a time where nukes did not exist? Ah, do you really want me to make it specific, I mean you can not analyse a war with "reasons" , in 1939 the 3rd reich should not attack on poland because" it would hurt their international support because it can be argued that it would no longer be self defence", and should not start "babarossa" in 1941when she is still in the war in the west.By no analysis should germany ever choose the way, but ..we all know what happend. We all know what happend afterwards, too. I don't think Putins goal is to get Russian dividided into 4 parts and completely destroyed and bombs found in the ground 80 years later. But maybe it is. Who knows
Dig 'em up, sell them for scraps. We are gonna be rich! Russian economy stabilised!
|
On May 19 2022 20:23 Simberto wrote:Show nested quote +On May 19 2022 19:00 fakovski wrote:On May 19 2022 15:46 Broetchenholer wrote:On May 19 2022 10:31 fakovski wrote:On May 19 2022 06:08 Artesimo wrote:Ukraine is not gonna invade russia for 2 reasons: it would hurt their international support because it can be argued that it would no longer be self defence. In addition to that, according to russian nuclear doctrine, use of nukes is permitted, when russias existence is threatened. I doubt ukraine wants to play chicken with either of those things. In regards to russias nuclear deterrence, this interesting assessment is somewhat related https://www.understandingwar.org/backgrounder/russian-annexation-occupied-ukraine-putin’s-unacceptable-“-ramp”very TLDR: russias current strategy could seek to grab as much territory as possible, integrate it into russia and then use the nuclear deterrence according to their doctrine to keep ukraine from trying to retake it. sorry to interrupt ,I don't know for what reason you words remind me of some situations in 1939~1941 Either you clarify your position or you stop making ominous sounding nothing post. In which way does the current situation compare to anything from a time where nukes did not exist? Ah, do you really want me to make it specific, I mean you can not analyse a war with "reasons" , in 1939 the 3rd reich should not attack on poland because" it would hurt their international support because it can be argued that it would no longer be self defence", and should not start "babarossa" in 1941when she is still in the war in the west.By no analysis should germany ever choose the way, but ..we all know what happend. You make the worst of arguments all over. Germany in 1939 should not invade Poland. It was a foolish thing to do. As can be seen by the ensuing complete destruction of the German state. (Now, it can be argued that we got rid of the nazis this way, which is a very good thing, but from their position it was clearly foolish) In a similar vein, the Russian attack on Ukraine was a foolish thing to do. Or is your argument that countries sometimes do foolish things? Because that is trivial, no one doubts that. You can absolutely analyze a war with reasons and rationality. Usually people want something when they go to war. There is no reason not to analyze the situation. The problem is that the situation are complex, and interact with the analysis to the point where analysis changes who people and countries react, which makes the whole problem really complicated.
He's not even making that argument.
He seems trying to insinuate that Ukraine is in the place of the nazis, as they are currently deciding whether or not to invade.
Which.... well. idk someone else can deal with that one.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
