EPTOn January 14 2024 08:45 Mohdoo wrote:
...and it now appears Ukraine is pretty screwed long-term.
What has happened recently that Ukraine became pretty screwed long-term?...and it now appears Ukraine is pretty screwed long-term.
Russo-Ukrainian War Thread - Page 639
| 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. | ||
|
ZeroByte13
799 Posts
| ||
|
Mohdoo
United States15743 Posts
On January 14 2024 11:26 KwarK wrote: Yes, Russia conquering Ukraine would be bad for Poland etc. Yes, all nations that don’t have a security agreement with a nuclear power are on the table for Putin. Yes, all land is an acceptable loss. The red line is NATO. That’s exactly why historically super neutral countries are joining NATO. That’s why nuclear powers just annexing their neighbours is seen as a death blow to nuclear non proliferation. That’s why all this support is being ploughed into Ukraine, despite Ukraine not being a western ally. I don’t get where you’re coming from. Your conclusion that nuclear armed imperial expansionism is bad is self evident. Your conclusion that the rest of the world should stand against it is self evident. That’s what they’re doing. It’s like you’re saying “if what you’re saying about a heliocentric solar system is true then that would mean the sun would rise in the east”. You’re conditionally deriving the things that are already evidently true. Sorry, I should have been more clear. The negative impact of Ukraine actually being lost to Russia would be so huge that it would make me lose all belief in the supposed NATO red line. It’s not like putting 2 magnets together making them run into each other where it’s simply the laws of physics. A decision would still need to be made. It’s not like everything is some script a computer runs and there are no overrides. Someone would still need to decide whether or not to defend Poland. If NATO decides it is acceptable to let Russia take Ukraine, I think NATO would make the same decision about Poland. | ||
|
Simberto
Germany11993 Posts
On January 15 2024 02:46 Mohdoo wrote: Sorry, I should have been more clear. The negative impact of Ukraine actually being lost to Russia would be so huge that it would make me lose all belief in the supposed NATO red line. It’s not like putting 2 magnets together making them run into each other where it’s simply the laws of physics. A decision would still need to be made. It’s not like everything is some script a computer runs and there are no overrides. Someone would still need to decide whether or not to defend Poland. If NATO decides it is acceptable to let Russia take Ukraine, I think NATO would make the same decision about Poland. I think that is incorrect. Nato doesn't actually have any responsibility towards Ukraine. But Poland is actually a part of Nato. If Nato wouldn't defend Poland, it would implode immediately, because it shows that it cannot fulfill its prime purpose as a defensive alliance. Furthermore, the way Nato is set up makes this harder to do. There are soldiers from most or all Nato countries in the easternmost nations especially because of this. If Russia attacks Poland, US soldiers die, German soldiers die, French soldiers die, British soldiers die. Because they are already in Poland. It is a lot harder for a country not on the front lines to say "Meh, have this one" and not feel involved under those circumstances. Letting Russia take over a basically unrelated country would be a completely different thing from letting them kill your soldiers and invade your ally. Now, protecting Ukraine is still in Natos interest, and should be done. Russia is clearly showing that it won't stop it expansionist tendencies unless stopped by outside forces. Better for that to happen in Ukraine rather than later on Nato territory with the real risk of nuclear armageddon. | ||
|
Sent.
Poland9331 Posts
| ||
|
Mohdoo
United States15743 Posts
On January 15 2024 02:56 Simberto wrote: I think that is incorrect. Nato doesn't actually have any responsibility towards Ukraine. But Poland is actually a part of Nato. If Nato wouldn't defend Poland, it would implode immediately, because it shows that it cannot fulfill its prime purpose as a defensive alliance. Furthermore, the way Nato is set up makes this harder to do. There are soldiers from most or all Nato countries in the easternmost nations especially because of this. If Russia attacks Poland, US soldiers die, German soldiers die, French soldiers die, British soldiers die. Because they are already in Poland. It is a lot harder for a country not on the front lines to say "Meh, have this one" and not feel involved under those circumstances. Letting Russia take over a basically unrelated country would be a completely different thing from letting them kill your soldiers and invade your ally. Now, protecting Ukraine is still in Natos interest, and should be done. Russia is clearly showing that it won't stop it expansionist tendencies unless stopped by outside forces. Better for that to happen in Ukraine rather than later on Nato territory with the real risk of nuclear armageddon. Isn’t nuclear armageddon still a million times worse than everything else you’re describing? Who cares about western credibility compared to human survival? My point is that if the reason to bend ourselves over a table for Putin is that we fear nuclear weapons, that fear should not apply less to Poland than Ukraine. I am saying the distinction is fake because the thing people are scared of would apply to both situations. Let’s assume western credibility is destroyed and whatnot and Russia essentially has free rein over Poland and other neighboring nations. How is that worse than the end of humanity? It’s clearly totally not. We have no reason to assume Putin would choose nukes for Ukraine and not for Poland. It’s the same basic dilemma. If we are scared of Putin in Ukraine, we are scared of him everywhere. So long as the comparison is made to nuclear apocalypse, it will always favor bending ourselves over | ||
|
JimmiC
Canada22817 Posts
| ||
|
Simberto
Germany11993 Posts
You don't want to end the world, but the other guy also doesn't want that. So you need to credibly communicate what you would be willing to end the world over, and then see if the other guy actually calls. So far, apparently the threat was believable enough that not one dared to really call and demand that the other proof that they are serious. None of this is new. It is just that the cold war has been restarted. And it seems to be working the way it always has. One side fighting some third party, and the other side supplying that third party, but not actually getting involved themselves. That is a level of conflict that people are confident no one will end the world over, and that we have seen multiple times before in the cold war. | ||
|
Gorsameth
Netherlands22586 Posts
On January 15 2024 03:06 Mohdoo wrote: Once you accept the notion that being enslaved is better then nuclear annihilation MAD stops working and "the other side" gets to rule the world.Isn’t nuclear armageddon still a million times worse than everything else you’re describing? Who cares about western credibility compared to human survival? My point is that if the reason to bend ourselves over a table for Putin is that we fear nuclear weapons, that fear should not apply less to Poland than Ukraine. I am saying the distinction is fake because the thing people are scared of would apply to both situations. Let’s assume western credibility is destroyed and whatnot and Russia essentially has free rein over Poland and other neighboring nations. How is that worse than the end of humanity? It’s clearly totally not. We have no reason to assume Putin would choose nukes for Ukraine and not for Poland. It’s the same basic dilemma. If we are scared of Putin in Ukraine, we are scared of him everywhere. So long as the comparison is made to nuclear apocalypse, it will always favor bending ourselves over Thanks to nuclear weapons humanity is at the point where we have to say "we will end the human race over X" and mean it. Else there is, ironically, no future. | ||
KwarK
United States44291 Posts
On January 15 2024 02:46 Mohdoo wrote: Sorry, I should have been more clear. The negative impact of Ukraine actually being lost to Russia would be so huge that it would make me lose all belief in the supposed NATO red line. It’s not like putting 2 magnets together making them run into each other where it’s simply the laws of physics. A decision would still need to be made. It’s not like everything is some script a computer runs and there are no overrides. Someone would still need to decide whether or not to defend Poland. If NATO decides it is acceptable to let Russia take Ukraine, I think NATO would make the same decision about Poland. We could live with Ukraine being lost. The problem is that Taiwan would get nukes, SK would get nukes, Poland would probably get nukes. If Russia took Ukraine and held it long term profitably then it would be a return to the age of expansionist imperialism with the only effective deterrent against larger nuclear powers being nuclear. Nukes aren’t that hard to get if there’s a serious national security concern. NK has them, Israel has them, Iran materially has them. The science isn’t that hard if you can throw money at it. That’s why, despite Ukraine’s relative unimportance, we’re choosing to punish Russia here. Not because adding some more grain to Russian control would make them too powerful. Not because adding another 40m population would make them too powerful. Not because Ukraine is an economic powerhouse. But because there’s a lesson that future Tsars need to see, that China needs to see, that anyone else who thinks expansionism would be fun needs to see. Even without nuclear annihilation we can still make it not worthwhile. Even if you win we will fuck with you throughout. | ||
|
Mohdoo
United States15743 Posts
On January 15 2024 03:46 KwarK wrote: We could live with Ukraine being lost. The problem is that Taiwan would get nukes, SK would get nukes, Poland would probably get nukes. If Russia took Ukraine and held it long term profitably then it would be a return to the age of expansionist imperialism with the only effective deterrent against larger nuclear powers being nuclear. Nukes aren’t that hard to get if there’s a serious national security concern. NK has them, Israel has them, Iran materially has them. The science isn’t that hard if you can throw money at it. That’s why, despite Ukraine’s relative unimportance, we’re choosing to punish Russia here. Not because adding some more grain to Russian control would make them too powerful. Not because adding another 40m population would make them too powerful. Not because Ukraine is an economic powerhouse. But because there’s a lesson that future Tsars need to see, that China needs to see, that anyone else who thinks expansionism would be fun needs to see. Even without nuclear annihilation we can still make it not worthwhile. Even if you win we will fuck with you throughout. Maybe I am misunderstanding you then. From what you are describing, if the situation devolved such that military war game simulation experts universally agree “ok, either we actually full-ass assist Ukraine or we accept Ukraine as lost”, you are saying either NATO or some other European/USA power would intervene? I hear you saying we would accept Ukraine as an unfortunate loss. And then I hear you describe why losing Ukraine is untenable and would completely destroy the current world order by signaling all non-nuclear powers are up for grabs. And just to be clear, it’s not like I’m saying “Kwark, since you are the world’s foremost expert on world military dynamics and you have direct contact with all world powers top military commanders, tell me the answer”. I am saying the model I have in my head feels wildly inconsistent and there is likely a big error somewhere in my mental model. It feels like this is the logic tree everyone describes for Putin: Can I take this land? If NATO is willing to nuke us over it, no. If they are not willing to nuke us, yes This logic sounds fine at first glance, but when I inspect it more closely, it does not appear valid. Let’s examine the possibility of Putin just rolling into Poland. Imagine he says “NATO, if you try to defend Poland, we will launch nukes at the first sign of NATO support. We will not wait for you to send a nuke first. Ask yourselves if Poland is worth mutually assured destruction” If NATO assumes he is not bluffing, it is not reasonable to defend Poland, because it wouldn’t actually work anyway. If Putin nukes Poland and everyone else within their nuclear capabilities at the first sign of NATO defense, what is the actual benefit of defending Poland? You could argue letting Poland be conquered is actually way better for Poland because Poland avoids being nuked. Putin himself would likely not die. I think we can all safely assume all major world powers have some sort of protocol where their government can immediately go like 2 miles underground in some unbelievably safe and secret bomb shelter. So even if Putin assumes mutually assured destruction, what if that isn’t actually worse than the current trajectory? What if Putin believes the possibility of Russia being supreme above all other nations gets less likely every year? What if a reset of sorts is actually way better? If NATO assumes he is bluffing, that would mean Putin is not willing to engage in mutually assured destruction. That would mean Putin would choose not to use nukes. It would mean Putin is comfortable with the idea of Russia simply not ever being supreme. So I’ll just be direct and indicate my conclusion here: whether it is Poland or Ukraine, the only question is whether or not Putin sees the current world trajectory as acceptable or not. Putin doesn’t have less reason to attack Poland because it ultimately only comes down to whether or not the current situation is allowable. If it is allowable, he won’t use nukes whether it is Ukraine or Poland. There is no real reason to use more restraint on Ukraine compared to Poland. It all comes down to whether Putin is satisfied or not. | ||
|
Mohdoo
United States15743 Posts
I have a theory why the war in Ukraine happened. As we all know, nukes are a temporary checkmate weapon. The theoretical limits of propulsion are totally inadequate when compared to lasers. As laser-based weapons systems continue to improve (in all the various ways they are currently totally inadequate), lasers will be able to prevent any missile from reaching its target. Whether it is an orbital array of lasers, upper atmosphere lasers, or even pre-atmosphere lasers, there will be a point where nukes just aren’t realistic. They will need to either somehow be delivered subterraneously or simply be useless against lasers. Once this happens, west vs east becomes a lot more 1 sided. MAD definitely favors Russia/China/NK because once we remove nukes from the equation, the western sphere of influence and power is simply way bigger and more powerful. What if the absolute cutting edge of nuclear missile defense is way further along than we realize? What if the US is close to not being vulnerable to missiles of any kind? What if the classic “sure, we’d intercept 80 of the nukes. But once the other 20 we missed hit the US, it’s all over anyway” simply stopped being true? I think it’s possible Russia believes they are stronger now than they ever will be. If Russia’s threat of nukes ever becomes something no one is worried about, their influence will immediately disappear. The west or the US might even decide to just go ahead and completely wipe out Russia if that ever became true. Imagine one day the US tests a system and confirms no missile is capable of ever harming North and South America. What if they run some simulations and decide it is 100% reasonable to just wipe out all nuclear-capable enemies in one giant launch? We can nuke them, they can’t nuke us, game over, right? It relies on this technology being robust and solid enough for this to be reasonable. But I think this isn’t some kinda sci fi fantasy. Propulsion and missiles as a whole will simply not be a threat eventually. It’s just a matter of when and what the world looks like at that moment. Maybe the window of opportunity for Russia to take all they can while hiding behind MAD is closing quickly. Maybe they know that. I think all nuclear capable nations all have the same goal of becoming immune to nukes. It’s just an incredibly difficult task. But it’s not impossible at all. It’s a matter of when, not if. | ||
|
Simberto
Germany11993 Posts
Nato will claim that it is willing to go to war over Poland (and it almost certainly is, because not doing so would mean total surrender to Russia). Russia will believe that, and thus not invade Poland. This is what the cold war has shown us: Nuclear powers are not willing to risk directly invading another Nuclear power, or a power directly allied with one, because the threat of escalation to total destruction is to credible. Nato will not claim that it is willing to go to war over Ukraine, and Russia probably wouldn't believe them if they did. Because Ukraine is further away and not actually part of the alliance. Russia winning in Ukraine would be a setback, sure, but not a total loss. Your "marching in and immediately threaten nuclear war" scenario doesn't seem to be something that Nuclear powers actually do. And yes, i expect Nato to fight back under that threat, because the only other option is total surrender to Russian slavery. And I assume that Russia expects the same reaction, and thus wouldn't do an attack like that. I would also question if it would actually work even if Nato completely backed off, considering that i am pretty confident that Poland alone could probably fight back reasonably well against Russia even without any Nato support. They have been preparing for exactly that war since 1990, and arming themselves with modern Nato armaments. They are much better prepared than Ukraine, and Russia can't even really deal with Ukraine. | ||
|
Gorsameth
Netherlands22586 Posts
On January 15 2024 05:38 Mohdoo wrote: Or its because Putin is a product of the USSR and he is getting old, and possibly sick, and this was his last chance of claiming his legacy as the man to restore greater Russia.Since this is an entirely separate topic, I will make it as a separate post because I think the ideas are different enough to justify it: I have a theory why the war in Ukraine happened. As we all know, nukes are a temporary checkmate weapon. The theoretical limits of propulsion are totally inadequate when compared to lasers. As laser-based weapons systems continue to improve (in all the various ways they are currently totally inadequate), lasers will be able to prevent any missile from reaching its target. Whether it is an orbital array of lasers, upper atmosphere lasers, or even pre-atmosphere lasers, there will be a point where nukes just aren’t realistic. They will need to either somehow be delivered subterraneously or simply be useless against lasers. Once this happens, west vs east becomes a lot more 1 sided. MAD definitely favors Russia/China/NK because once we remove nukes from the equation, the western sphere of influence and power is simply way bigger and more powerful. What if the absolute cutting edge of nuclear missile defense is way further along than we realize? What if the US is close to not being vulnerable to missiles of any kind? What if the classic “sure, we’d intercept 80 of the nukes. But once the other 20 we missed hit the US, it’s all over anyway” simply stopped being true? I think it’s possible Russia believes they are stronger now than they ever will be. If Russia’s threat of nukes ever becomes something no one is worried about, their influence will immediately disappear. The west or the US might even decide to just go ahead and completely wipe out Russia if that ever became true. Imagine one day the US tests a system and confirms no missile is capable of ever harming North and South America. What if they run some simulations and decide it is 100% reasonable to just wipe out all nuclear-capable enemies in one giant launch? We can nuke them, they can’t nuke us, game over, right? It relies on this technology being robust and solid enough for this to be reasonable. But I think this isn’t some kinda sci fi fantasy. Propulsion and missiles as a whole will simply not be a threat eventually. It’s just a matter of when and what the world looks like at that moment. Maybe the window of opportunity for Russia to take all they can while hiding behind MAD is closing quickly. Maybe they know that. I think all nuclear capable nations all have the same goal of becoming immune to nukes. It’s just an incredibly difficult task. But it’s not impossible at all. It’s a matter of when, not if. (also the answer to losing the M out of MAD isn't to invade Ukraine but to launch everything before the US becoming immune and claims their global hegemony) | ||
|
Sent.
Poland9331 Posts
| ||
|
JimmiC
Canada22817 Posts
| ||
|
Fleetfeet
Canada2834 Posts
On January 15 2024 05:38 Mohdoo wrote: Since this is an entirely separate topic, I will make it as a separate post because I think the ideas are different enough to justify it: I have a theory why the war in Ukraine happened. As we all know, nukes are a temporary checkmate weapon. The theoretical limits of propulsion are totally inadequate when compared to lasers. As laser-based weapons systems continue to improve (in all the various ways they are currently totally inadequate), lasers will be able to prevent any missile from reaching its target. Whether it is an orbital array of lasers, upper atmosphere lasers, or even pre-atmosphere lasers, there will be a point where nukes just aren’t realistic. They will need to either somehow be delivered subterraneously or simply be useless against lasers. Once this happens, west vs east becomes a lot more 1 sided. MAD definitely favors Russia/China/NK because once we remove nukes from the equation, the western sphere of influence and power is simply way bigger and more powerful. What if the absolute cutting edge of nuclear missile defense is way further along than we realize? What if the US is close to not being vulnerable to missiles of any kind? What if the classic “sure, we’d intercept 80 of the nukes. But once the other 20 we missed hit the US, it’s all over anyway” simply stopped being true? I think it’s possible Russia believes they are stronger now than they ever will be. If Russia’s threat of nukes ever becomes something no one is worried about, their influence will immediately disappear. The west or the US might even decide to just go ahead and completely wipe out Russia if that ever became true. Imagine one day the US tests a system and confirms no missile is capable of ever harming North and South America. What if they run some simulations and decide it is 100% reasonable to just wipe out all nuclear-capable enemies in one giant launch? We can nuke them, they can’t nuke us, game over, right? It relies on this technology being robust and solid enough for this to be reasonable. But I think this isn’t some kinda sci fi fantasy. Propulsion and missiles as a whole will simply not be a threat eventually. It’s just a matter of when and what the world looks like at that moment. Maybe the window of opportunity for Russia to take all they can while hiding behind MAD is closing quickly. Maybe they know that. I think all nuclear capable nations all have the same goal of becoming immune to nukes. It’s just an incredibly difficult task. But it’s not impossible at all. It’s a matter of when, not if. I don't think you can have both of these: "Our science has perfectly and covertly advanced far enough to confirm 100% interception of all rocket-based payload delivery systems" "Their science has not advanced at all, we know this perfectly, and they don't know the strength of our defences, much less ways inside them" Like if you're talking about hypothetical advanced defense systems, then surely advanced offence systems are equally possible, especially when you're suggesting that the very existence of a country is dependant on that technology. The whole premise seems too much like the clean plotline of a movie anyways - reality is a lot messier. | ||
|
Mohdoo
United States15743 Posts
On January 15 2024 06:00 Sent. wrote: I don't understand why you're so fixated on nuclear weapons. Even if Russia didn't have them the West would still likely not join the war because the Western public simply doesn't want that. People don't want their soldiers to die, they don't want their civilians to die in airstrikes, they don't want the economy to shift to war mode. Ukraine is an external issue Western governments are expected to handle and those governments have public support to do that in a way that doesn't endanger their citizens. My understanding is that Western air force support could be used to launch extremely long range missiles such that there is a negligible risk to the pilots/planes while providing an enormous amount of support. Is that not the case? As I understand, the US air force is not even defending any positions within Ukraine. An incredible amount of value could be gained by using our air force for safe benefits. As I understand, we choose not to do that because "escalation". Is that not the case? | ||
|
KwarK
United States44291 Posts
On January 15 2024 05:20 Mohdoo wrote: Maybe I am misunderstanding you then. From what you are describing, if the situation devolved such that military war game simulation experts universally agree “ok, either we actually full-ass assist Ukraine or we accept Ukraine as lost”, you are saying either NATO or some other European/USA power would intervene? I hear you saying we would accept Ukraine as an unfortunate loss. And then I hear you describe why losing Ukraine is untenable and would completely destroy the current world order by signaling all non-nuclear powers are up for grabs. And just to be clear, it’s not like I’m saying “Kwark, since you are the world’s foremost expert on world military dynamics and you have direct contact with all world powers top military commanders, tell me the answer”. I am saying the model I have in my head feels wildly inconsistent and there is likely a big error somewhere in my mental model. It feels like this is the logic tree everyone describes for Putin: Can I take this land? If NATO is willing to nuke us over it, no. If they are not willing to nuke us, yes This logic sounds fine at first glance, but when I inspect it more closely, it does not appear valid. Let’s examine the possibility of Putin just rolling into Poland. Imagine he says “NATO, if you try to defend Poland, we will launch nukes at the first sign of NATO support. We will not wait for you to send a nuke first. Ask yourselves if Poland is worth mutually assured destruction” If NATO assumes he is not bluffing, it is not reasonable to defend Poland, because it wouldn’t actually work anyway. If Putin nukes Poland and everyone else within their nuclear capabilities at the first sign of NATO defense, what is the actual benefit of defending Poland? You could argue letting Poland be conquered is actually way better for Poland because Poland avoids being nuked. Putin himself would likely not die. I think we can all safely assume all major world powers have some sort of protocol where their government can immediately go like 2 miles underground in some unbelievably safe and secret bomb shelter. So even if Putin assumes mutually assured destruction, what if that isn’t actually worse than the current trajectory? What if Putin believes the possibility of Russia being supreme above all other nations gets less likely every year? What if a reset of sorts is actually way better? If NATO assumes he is bluffing, that would mean Putin is not willing to engage in mutually assured destruction. That would mean Putin would choose not to use nukes. It would mean Putin is comfortable with the idea of Russia simply not ever being supreme. So I’ll just be direct and indicate my conclusion here: whether it is Poland or Ukraine, the only question is whether or not Putin sees the current world trajectory as acceptable or not. Putin doesn’t have less reason to attack Poland because it ultimately only comes down to whether or not the current situation is allowable. If it is allowable, he won’t use nukes whether it is Ukraine or Poland. There is no real reason to use more restraint on Ukraine compared to Poland. It all comes down to whether Putin is satisfied or not. You've just reinvented nuclear game theory. Yes, obviously nothing is worth nuclear annihilation over and therefore logically if your opponent is hell bent on taking X or killing us all you should just give him X. But if you're willing to just give him X then you have to give him everything because he'll never stop. So even though nothing is worth nuclear annihilation everything is too much and therefore there has to be a line, even if that line is arbitrary and even if that line protects things that are not worth nuclear annihilation. The line is irrational but you must have a line anyway. And you must convince them that they're willing to irrationally defend that line. They might be crazy but you're a little bit crazy too. And so they have to respect your crazy lines and sometimes be the sane one because you can't both be the crazy one. Both sides have to pretend to be irrational enough to be worth respecting, but they can't be so irrational that they go too far. It's a game. It's a game that has been discussed in countless essays throughout the cold war. It was the dominant question in global politics for fifty years. More books have been written on this specific question that refute your "well surely you just give the madman everything" idea than you have time to read in your lifetime. The red line is irrational, arbitrary, and Poland (and now Finland). They make a serious attempt at Poland and we have agreed we'll all die over it. That's the commitment we've made. We don't want to die over Poland but we recognize that if we don't die over Poland then we'll just end up dying over Germany or whatever and so Poland is as good as reason to die as any. We've spent decades telling them it's Poland and they've agreed that that's the line. And the credibility of that commitment is why it'll never be invoked. We can't tell them overnight that Ukraine is the line because that'd be unreasonable, it'd be like if they suddenly said "give us Poland or everyone dies". It's not part of the agreed upon framework, they'd call our bluff and it would be a bluff because we're not going to kill ourselves over Ukraine. And they know that and we know that they know that and so we don't declare that commitment because it'd be devastating to the credibility of MAD if we ever made a commitment and then didn't keep it. You don't make bluffs and they don't call your bluffs because even your bluffs aren't free. Ukraine is not under the MAD umbrella and therefore Russia is able to take it, if they so choose, without MAD being involved. Other nations could get more directly involved in limited ways if it became necessary but I don't believe any will choose to do so. If Ukraine falls it falls, NATO will not protect a non member. It can't because to do so would break the rules of nuclear game theory, you never demand something that the other side can't accept. Khrushchev understood this when Kennedy told him that he was willing to kill everyone over nukes in Cuba, but backing down cost Khrushchev his credibility and ultimately his premiership. We could demand Putin leave Ukraine but we'd lose that summit, lose Ukraine, and the loss of credibility would ultimately make them more likely to cross an actual red line. Bluffing on red lines is how you get the opponent to not take them seriously and accidentally cross one which triggers an all out nuclear exchange, it's extremely dangerous, you don't do it. However Ukraine is also not behind the Russian red line. They can claim that it is and that any intervention in the West will result in a devastating response, and indeed they have claimed that. But it's not credible because it's not a reasonable demand nor an established and accepted demand. Both sides have for a long time agreed on what the red lines are and that's actually somewhat necessary for the system to work because to a certain extent you're always bluffing about your red lines too because you don't really want to die over the little things but you kinda have to. You can't have maximalist red lines because those won't get respected and you'll have to kill everyone over something that wasn't all that important. You can't have minimalist red lines because then you end up giving up Alaska in the name of peace. You have to have ones that the other side understands and accepts as reasonable which are ideally historically rooted and grandfathered in. Ukraine is no longer grandfathered in as a Russian Federation red line, it's a separate state and we can absolutely play there. The West refused to agree to Russia's stated red lines and it turned out that they were right to do so, Russia was not willing to escalate when we dared them. They said that if we sent missiles to Ukraine that would be an act of war but they were bluffing, and we knew they were bluffing. They said it we sent tanks it'd be an act of war. They said it countless times and each time we made them look like whiny bitches. They weren't willing to all die over whatever those missiles destroyed, not if it was limited to conventional warfare. The West has openly shit all over Russia's red lines throughout this war which has made Putin a laughing stock and Russia's Red Lines have replaced "China's Final Warning" as a meme. Ultimately Putin believes that he can take Ukraine if the West doesn't get directly involved and if Western support is limited to conventional forces. It may be more expensive than he'd like but he believes he can do it and as such the red lines aren't required. Once it is incorporated into Russia it'll fall under the Russian nuclear aegis and then it'll be theirs forever, we won't directly touch that new red line. He doesn't like that we're fucking with him by giving them missiles but he can work with that within the existing framework. And the West believes that if Ukraine does fall they can live with that too, though they'd much rather it didn't. It's not a red line for the West, nor could it be, because it would immediately be crossed because it's not a reasonable place to have a red line and you can't set up your nuclear annihilation trigger somewhere where it'll be immediately crossed. For the West they just need to make it extremely clear to outside observers that even if you're not already under the Western nuclear aegis you'll not be left undefended. That annexing neighbours is a lot more expensive than not doing it and that it's not a profitable game to play. If Ukraine continues to successfully resist with conventional forces, or even takes Crimea back, then Putin is somewhat cornered. He can't suddenly decide that Ukraine is covered by the Russian red line and start nuking people, not after he's already backed down a hundred times. Because, as above, you can't set up your nuclear annihilation trigger where it'll be immediately crossed and you can't declare red lines that your opponent doesn't somewhat agree upon. In that timeline it'll be a triumph for the West and for the rules based international system. The bad actor will be punished, humiliated, and bankrupted. China will look at Putin's folly and decide that fucking about doesn't look fun, even if they doubt American commitment to intervene directly. | ||
|
Gorsameth
Netherlands22586 Posts
On January 15 2024 06:15 Mohdoo wrote: Sure. And then Russia starts launching missiles at the EU? Don't think we have enough Patriots to screen the entire European border, including the sea.My understanding is that Western air force support could be used to launch extremely long range missiles such that there is a negligible risk to the pilots/planes while providing an enormous amount of support. Is that not the case? As I understand, the US air force is not even defending any positions within Ukraine. An incredible amount of value could be gained by using our air force for safe benefits. As I understand, we choose not to do that because "escalation". Is that not the case? We don't attack Russia so Russia doesn't attack us. The moment we break that is the moment they don't have to abide by it either. | ||
|
Mohdoo
United States15743 Posts
On January 15 2024 06:04 Fleetfeet wrote: I don't think you can have both of these: "Our science has perfectly and covertly advanced far enough to confirm 100% interception of all rocket-based payload delivery systems" "Their science has not advanced at all, we know this perfectly, and they don't know the strength of our defences, much less ways inside them" Like if you're talking about hypothetical advanced defense systems, then surely advanced offence systems are equally possible, especially when you're suggesting that the very existence of a country is dependant on that technology. The whole premise seems too much like the clean plotline of a movie anyways - reality is a lot messier. Well, I understand what you are saying, but in the case of lasers vs missiles, the idea is that lasers harm an extremely small area compared to a nuke. A satellite capable of intercepting 100 missiles would not be able to destroy a city or something. The amount of area needed to intercept a missile is many orders of magnitude less than the area of damage created by a nuke. The issue with using lasers to intercept missiles is the energy requirements, time to ramp up, precision, and like a million other things. We don't really have good laser weapons at all right now because its a pretty tall order. Its just one of those things that's really hard. Either we would need each system to be fueled by a nuclear reactor or we would need an enormous advancement in reducing energy requirements. | ||
| ||
