EPTWe won’t go from peace to nuclear war in one step. But declaring a no-fly zone can put us on a path that might end in apocalypse.
Russo-Ukrainian War Thread - Page 311
| Forum Index > General Forum |
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. | ||
|
Silvanel
Poland4730 Posts
We won’t go from peace to nuclear war in one step. But declaring a no-fly zone can put us on a path that might end in apocalypse. | ||
|
Artesimo
Germany546 Posts
On November 17 2022 01:19 KwarK wrote: Everything is escalatory. NATO expansion, HIMARS, sanctions, everything. Everything you do runs the risk of the other side saying that it crosses a red line and that either you back down or risk nuclear war. You can’t engage in foreign policy without a small risk of armageddon, the question is how much you’re willing to risk and whether you correctly guess their risk tolerance. Yes, and you can't compare sending weapons to ukraine, which can arguably make you a war party, with directly attacking a war party, which most likely makes you a war party. Stating the obvious that anything can theoretically be seen as escalatory to defend the idea of taking a step that is much more likely seems like a very unproductive contribution to me... As I understand it, your argument is now at "don't be scared of the 1/6 chance, you already took a bunch of 1/6000chances". Sending weapons and such is a much smaller escalation, one that you can much easier walk back and that is much less likely to lead to a situation that is running out of control, which is what the whole concern with escalation is about. Actions and reactions that ultimately lead in disaster without it ever being the intention of either party. EDIT: Silvanel perfectly described the path that drastic escalation can lead down to, and which nato/the west is cautious of. | ||
KwarK
United States42772 Posts
On November 17 2022 01:27 Silvanel wrote: Actually the most likely scenario after declaring no-fly zone is limited conventional exchange between Russia and NATO. Then both sides likely will evaluate and if they refuse to de-escalate we enter a fully fledged conventional conflict in which many people will die. When Saint Petersburg is encircled, Russia will play the nuclear card again. But this time they will really use some tactical warhead if NATO won't pull its troops. If West don't back down then the strategic assets will come into play. The World as we know it will end. We won’t go from peace to nuclear war in one step. But declaring a no-fly zone can put us on a path that might end in apocalypse. Everything is one step on a path but you don’t ever have to take the next step. You don’t have to encircle St Petersburg. | ||
|
JimmiC
Canada22817 Posts
| ||
|
Dan HH
Romania9122 Posts
On November 17 2022 01:27 Silvanel wrote: Actually the most likely scenario after declaring no-fly zone is limited conventional exchange between Russia and NATO. Then both sides likely will evaluate and if they refuse to de-escalate we enter a fully fledged conventional conflict in which many people will die. When Saint Petersburg is encircled, Russia will play the nuclear card again. But this time they will really use some tactical warhead if NATO won't pull its troops. If West don't back down then the strategic assets will come into play. The World as we know it will end. We won’t go from peace to nuclear war in one step. But declaring a no-fly zone can put us on a path that might end in apocalypse. Sure, but we need Russia to have the same thought when considering rage-bombing Lviv 1000km away from the front-line every time Ukraine has a successful operation. Until now they clearly didn't. Yesterday they pooped their pants a little seeing the news and we shouldn't just go 'nevermind, carry on'. | ||
|
Artesimo
Germany546 Posts
On November 17 2022 04:50 JimmiC wrote: I agree with Kwark vs the slippery slope style arguments. Way to simplified, but his point is that there are any number of steps or provocations that could lead to nuclear war. But none of them mean nuclear war because each step is another decision point for both parties. He believes that small other steps are still possible to take without it leading to nuclear war because none of the previous provocations (ever anywhere since more than one person had nukes) have and everyone is so aware of how awful nuclear war is. Brinksmanship is scary as hell because of the consequence of it failing, but do to the existence of dictators looking to expand their empires by force it is something that has to happen. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slippery_slope Slippery slope does not apply here because the point was that some actions are tiny steps that do not lead to irreversible escalation. Direct military involvement in a ongoing conflict is not comparable to shipping weapons. It is a giant leap by comparison, and something that is incredible hard to walk back when done intentionally. There is a reason why the west has been very restraint with their language for the most part, even when russia was repeatedly bluffing the use of nuclear weapons. The public response from the west was very moderate while internally everything points towards the US and others having made sure russia is aware that it would lead to dire consequences. But by keeping it to diplomatic channels and (with the exception of some former military officials) mostly out of the public discourse, it does not pose any large provocation that could develop a momentum on its own. I am just gonna say it flatout, comparing himars shipments to shooting down russian planes is not simplistic, is wrong by any practical measure. Sure what he says is correct in theory but so is saying I fought world hunger because I gave a starving homeless a slice of cheese. We can just point to syria, where similar ideas got swatted down for the very same reasons with what you can argue were a lot lower stakes (russia only supporting a ongoing war rather than fighting their own war). And war between russia and the west itself is something everyone wants to avoid, even without the nuclear danger. So yeah, we have historic precedence(syria), as well as current examples (pretty much everyone the west has done while supporting ukraine) that support the argument against any direct involvement, so I am gonna take that side of the argument for more credible. We also had the cuban missile crisis being cited here, that afaik is considered a negative example and the result of massive diplomatic failures. EDIT: "We can't give ukraine tanks because that could lead to them getting nukes" This would be a slippery slope because action A and action B are removed from eachother by a wide margin with lots of easily stoppable steps in between. | ||
|
JimmiC
Canada22817 Posts
| ||
|
Artesimo
Germany546 Posts
On November 17 2022 06:45 JimmiC wrote: You have added a bunch of strawman's that no one has put out there. And you are saying some steps are slipperyer than others, which also no one has disagreed with. Maybe I misread your post then, because to me it sounded like you were disagreeing with that... In regards to the strawman, I might have messed up there, but I don't think I have any... the Himars comment was in reference to this On November 17 2022 01:19 KwarK wrote: Everything is escalatory. NATO expansion, HIMARS, sanctions, everything. Everything you do runs the risk of the other side saying that it crosses a red line and that either you back down or risk nuclear war. You can’t engage in foreign policy without a small risk of armageddon, the question is how much you’re willing to risk and whether you correctly guess their risk tolerance. Which I agree is not literally stating that, but that is how I interpreted it. I am happy to admit if I was wrong in that. | ||
|
JimmiC
Canada22817 Posts
| ||
|
Artesimo
Germany546 Posts
On November 17 2022 06:59 JimmiC wrote: He is saying that they are all provocations, not that they are equal. That everything you do has some risk, everything that has been done so far has not lead to nuclear war, but any change from now on could, so if you want to do any more you have to accept that risk. You notice he also said you do not have to surround. Which means you can shoot down missiles and planes over the Ukraine but you do not need to go all the way. Each choice and counter choice has a option. And we are very likely a lot of those away from nuclear war. In that case I would fail to see the relevancy of his post as its back to the slice of cheese example: true in essence, completely irrelevant to the argument because it is a completely different dimension of severity. And I am confident that the problems with a no fly zone are less reliant on how much of ukraine you cover, but on the fact that you take a direct role in the conflict, and potentially have to shoot down russian planes. My point does in no way hinge on the % of ukrainian airspace covered, it hinges on the actions that would be required to enforce it. Though naturally, the risk of a irreversible escalation increases the bigger the area gets. | ||
|
JimmiC
Canada22817 Posts
| ||
|
Artesimo
Germany546 Posts
On November 17 2022 07:23 JimmiC wrote: You think a no fly zone would lead to nuclear war, he thinks it won't because no other escalation has and there are more steps between a plane going down and all out nuclear war. I tend to agree with him. There is no right or wrong because it is a guess about future interactions and we will likely never know the answer. I do not and did not say so. I was saying a no fly zone is outside the realm of what the west deems an acceptable risk as it would require direct involvement in the war, which will most likely bring us to war with russia. I did not go as far as nuclear, I started at 'we (the west) do not want to go to war with russia. this most likely requires us to do so/would get us dragged in, that is why its not an option'. Conventional war between russia and the west going nuclear is an option ofc, but not one my argument was based on, or that I mentioned. Though I should have been more clear on that since its easy to jump to that conclusion when someone mentions war with russia. I try to keep it in mind. | ||
|
KwarK
United States42772 Posts
The reason Russia accepts such provocative attacks is because they have no choice. If any country not shielded under a nuclear aegis did that to them Russia would bomb the shit out of it. But the US is the big dog and so Russia is left to choose between saying A) obviously you’re attacking us but we’re too much of a bitch to respond so we’re just gonna let you do it B) That brown paper bag attacked us If you asked Russia ahead of time how they’d respond to the US putting their fist in a brown paper bag and then punching them in the face then they’d say that it’s obviously an act of war because it obviously is. But the US just went ahead and did it and forced Russia to come up with the justification for why they won’t respond. Russia can’t respond, not because it’s not provocative, but because the US is stronger. They have to back down and so they come up with excuses to save face. You can be super fucking provocative because everyone involved is invested in looking the other way. Russia can arm militias and put bounties on US troops. They can do chemical weapons attacks on England. The US can do everything it’s done in Ukraine. You just go ahead and do what you like and force the other guy to explain why it’s not that he’s a bitch, it’s that it’s not really an act of war. There’s a limit to how far you can push it but we’re nowhere near that. | ||
|
Gorsameth
Netherlands21700 Posts
| ||
|
Artesimo
Germany546 Posts
On November 17 2022 07:46 KwarK wrote: US satellites provide imagery to US analysts who identify targets to be entered in to US missile launchers which fire US missiles guided by US GPS at those targets. The US is already attacking Russia, for the sake of appearances we find it convenient to have a Ukrainian, trained by the US, press the button. But that’s a brown bag around a bottle of whiskey. Alice tells me your address, hands me a crowbar and tells me when you are on vacation. I break in while you are gone and steal your stuff. Did Alice break in your home? No, I did. He did supplied me with things that enabled me to do so. A proportional response, lets say in the form of sentencing, to what Alice did would be different from what a proportional response to what I did would be. I don't think your example holds up to how international politic is done. I agree that it is not as clear cut what constitutes being an active war party and what not. Training troops definitely seems more of a gray area, sending weapons less so as there is plenty historic precedence for that. From my understanding, diplomacy often hinges on established precedence. The training of troops might be more in a gray area though. The reason Russia accepts such provocative attacks is because they have no choice. If any country not shielded under a nuclear aegis did that to them Russia would bomb the shit out of it. But the US is the big dog and so Russia is left to choose between saying A) obviously you’re attacking us but we’re too much of a bitch to respond so we’re just gonna let you do it B) That brown paper bag attacked us If you asked Russia ahead of time how they’d respond to the US putting their fist in a brown paper bag and then punching them in the face then they’d say that it’s obviously an act of war because it obviously is. But the US just went ahead and did it and forced Russia to come up with the justification for why they won’t respond. Russia can’t respond, not because it’s not provocative, but because the US is stronger. They have to back down and so they come up with excuses to save face. You can be super fucking provocative because everyone involved is invested in looking the other way. Russia can arm militias and put bounties on US troops. They can do chemical weapons attacks on England. The US can do everything it’s done in Ukraine. You just go ahead and do what you like and force the other guy to explain why it’s not that he’s a bitch, it’s that it’s not really an act of war. There’s a limit to how far you can push it but we’re nowhere near that. There are things that are easier to ignore than others. You can ignore Alice telling me when its a good time to break in much easier than ignoring me actually breaking in. And all you said about the nuclear aegis - well that also applies to russia and is probably a key factor why so far every western action seems to agree with what I said: the risk of direct involvement is unacceptable. Direct involvement in the war in any capacity to me seems like a pretty obvious limit from western perspective... One that has been actively and publicly stated, even before the war broke out (reminder. I fail to see how this is anything but circling back to playing russian roulette believing that you are lucky. All the while also saying things that are not wrong, but that don't do doing anything for your initial point... We did not discuss if we are already at the limit of what can be done, the starting point was that a no fly zone is not on the table because of the risk of being dragged into the war. We keep things at an arms length, enough of a degree of separation, or plausible deniability as to not force anyone to drag us into the war. | ||
|
KwarK
United States42772 Posts
| ||
|
Artesimo
Germany546 Posts
On November 17 2022 08:43 KwarK wrote: But we do not respect it when Russia says that something is a red line. We go ahead and do it anyway and let them work out how they're going to backtrack. Just because they say that something is a red line does not mean that it is. Correct, we do not take russias word at face value. We have set that red line for ourselves. My government has stated many times that avoiding to become a war party is a top priority. The US has ruled out direct involvement in ukraine a couple of times, even before the war broke out. Other states probably have done the same. A couple of states have explicitly stated that if you actively serve in their military, you are in no way allowed to take part in the war in ukraine. I think some even put limits on former military members ability to join the fighting, but I might be wrong here. My argument did not hinge on russia saying anything, but on what we, the west, have said, done and indicated. We have been very clear about our intentions and actions because we do not want any drastic escalation. I am even willing to leave the realm of facts and start with actual speculations rather than observations: We do not even believe that russia would want to go to war with us if we were directly involved in the war - we are afraid of not giving them any choice in the matter/putting them in a position where they feel they don't have a chouce. That is why we keep our public involvement indirect. | ||
|
Gorsameth
Netherlands21700 Posts
On November 17 2022 08:57 Artesimo wrote: I'd say all those lines are a lot less about not wanting drastic escalation and a lot more about not wanting to have headlines about dead soldiers.Correct, we do not take russias word at face value. We have set that red line for ourselves. My government has stated many times that avoiding to become a war party is a top priority. The US has ruled out direct involvement in ukraine a couple of times, even before the war broke out. Other states probably have done the same. A couple of states have explicitly stated that if you actively serve in their military, you are in no way allowed to take part in the war in ukraine. I think some even put limits on former military members ability to join the fighting, but I might be wrong here. My argument did not hinge on russia saying anything, but on what we, the west, have said, done and indicated. We have been very clear about our intentions and actions because we do not want any drastic escalation. I am even willing to leave the realm of facts and start with actual speculations rather than observations: We do not even believe that russia would want to go to war with us if we were directly involved in the war - we are afraid of not giving them any choice in the matter/putting them in a position where they feel they don't have a chouce. That is why we keep our public involvement indirect. Its primarily about avoiding putting our soldiers at risk, | ||
|
Artesimo
Germany546 Posts
On November 17 2022 09:03 Gorsameth wrote: I'd say all those lines are a lot less about not wanting drastic escalation and a lot more about not wanting to have headlines about dead soldiers. Its primarily about avoiding putting our soldiers at risk, I don't think so since I know germany does not allow any active military personnel to join, but if you are a civilian its no problem, and I think the same goes for the other countries that don't allow their military personel to take a leave to join up. There have already been reports of foreign fighters in ukraine in russian captivity, not too long ago there was a report on a former bundeswehr soldier being killed in ukraine. I think this is also to not give russia any grounds to claim western troops fighting for ukraine though. | ||
|
JimmiC
Canada22817 Posts
| ||
| ||
