Why are we talking about nukes? As far as I can tell, there is no threat of that actually happening at this time.
Why are we talking about nukes? As far as I can tell, there is no threat of that actually happening at this time.
QuasiMofo (John Brown) said:In reply to eastsideTim :
Could that be the end game?
China betting on being the only financial superpower if the economy collapses?
Nope. China relies upon the U.S. and Europe financially as much as or more than we rely on them. Their economies would collapse before the "west" does.
It's easy to bemoan that "everything is made in China now..." but that is a choice, not a necessity. The U.S. and Europe have a *lot* of manufacturing capacity. We *could* shift to making every (critical) thing domestically if necessary. It would just slow things down and cost more.
Our new fermentation tanks at the brewery were manufactured in China, but ordered through a local manufacturing company who did the design and QA/QC. Although China has excellent manufacturing capability, there is a strong culture of getting away with the shoddiest work they can.
There was a group of students in my brewing school from a state run Chinese brewery. They massively cheated their way through all of the exams. Their motivation was being able to show their certification and check boxes for the beaurocracy that sent them. A totally foreign concept to the rest of us (was going to say "westerners", but we also had students from Russia, Turkey, Israel, South Korea, Taiwan, and I want to say Hong Kong and/or Singapore) who were there to LEARN, and exams were a measurement for ourselves.
There seems to be little discussion of desired outcomes anywhere that I can see. It's not a question of where sympathies lie, but rather of what result of the current situation best serves US interests. Put another way, from a US foreign policy perspective, what is better: helping Ukraine to win, or weakening Russia? These objectives require significantly different policy approaches.
If one looks at the US role as a non-combatant supporter of a lesser power engaged in a war with a great power, there are numerous historical examples that provide relevant guidance. The US had a similar role in the Soviet war in Afghanistan, and it's objective there was clearly to weaken Russia, not to help the Afghans win the war (at least until the mid-80s, when funding was increased at the request of politicians, not the CIA). Holding a great power in a costly war is a very useful technique for weakening their position without the exposure of direct engagement. The Soviets and the Chinese did the same to the US in Vietnam and Korea; in neither case was there great enthusiasm for the Communist proxy to win quickly or to be anything more than a dependent of the great powers (though which one remained an open question, but that's another issue).
The point being that right now there is no distinction being made between the ideas of weakening Russia and supporting Ukraine, but there should be. At this stage, the amount of support extended to Ukraine has been basically to get them as many defensive weapons as possible, and this has been very effective. But going beyond this, particularly providing anything with offensive capabilities, changes the game. Russia is reportedly recruiting mercenaries and looking to China for equipment; both of these reinforce everything that has already suggested their military is far less capable than expected, and is suffering badly as a result. Continued fighting undermines the Russian leadership's position, and without question keeping Ukraine strong enough to resist effectively is beneficial. But if the time comes where Russia runs out of steam and Ukraine turns the tide, then what? We don't know Putin's next step in those circumstances, and unknowns are dangerous.
Right now, Putin is stuck in the briar patch - keeping him stuck there for as long as possible has its merits. An argument can be made that Ukraine should be supported enough to not lose, but not to the extent that they can win, at least not quickly. This prolongs the war, allowing more time for sanctions and military losses to bleed Putin's government, and hopefully undermines it sufficiently to precipitate some sort of change in leadership. It's also going to cause greater suffering in Ukraine (as well as Russia), which ironically helps to maintain pressure on Russia by prolonging the exposure of the situation to a notoriously fickle Western populace. High visibility humanitarian efforts are a Western strong suit, and help when it comes to mustering international support among third parties for support of sanctions and such, but these quickly become old news once the flow of refugees stops.
Without question, the primacy of moral vs. political objectives has to be taken into account. Historically, political objectives virtually always win out when it comes to making policy. Is there a cost? Certainly, but when it enables the imposition of higher costs on rival states, that cost often makes a lot of sense from a long-term policy perspective.
tuna55 said:Driven5 said:I still don't understand why nobody let the Ukrainian forces know that those 'antiquated old' Migs were being kept fully fueled outside at a low security, easy to access airstrip, with the 'doors unlocked and keys in the ignition'... Then give one of those less than useless 'public condemnations' (with a wink and a nod) when they 'steal' the planes, and have closed-door diplomatic meetings to 'restore' (celebrate) the relationship. The Russians can accuse it of being intentionally coordinated all they want, but all that has to be done is give the same hollow denials that western leaders continually let these dicktators get away with.
This is what we need. A 21st century version of lend lease. It needs to be sneaky. If Putt Putt plays dirty, so can we. What? Those planes do look like A10s, but they look like Ukrainian flags on them, and our guys never flew them to Ukraine. We'll check our stockpile and get back to you when we finished our investigation.
Fly the Polish MiGs and Ukrainian pilots to Sweden. Let's see if Vlad wants to tip Sweden to a NATO country.
02Pilot said:There seems to be little discussion of desired outcomes anywhere that I can see. It's not a question of where sympathies lie, but rather of what result of the current situation best serves US interests. Put another way, from a US foreign policy perspective, what is better: helping Ukraine to win, or weakening Russia? These objectives require significantly different policy approaches.
I think western - especially U.S. - policy is being driven from a very conservative (small 'C', not ideological), defensive stance. Everyone is trying to very very gradually ramp up the response to Russia/Putin to avoid doing anything sudden that might provoke Putin.
We don't want to make any sudden movements around the guy with nukes.
So I think we'll basically see a continued very gradual increase in pressure that's really about what we can get away with and going for that.
I'm certain there are factions and voices espousing both of those goals. Even within individual governments, I don't think the entirety of the German Chancellor's office all agrees on whether the goal should be weakening Russia or helping Ukraine, let alone every nation involved in responding to Russia.
02Pilot said:Right now, Putin is stuck in the briar patch - keeping him stuck there for as long as possible has its merits. An argument can be made that Ukraine should be supported enough to not lose, but not to the extent that they can win, at least not quickly. This prolongs the war, allowing more time for sanctions and military losses to bleed Putin's government, and hopefully undermines it sufficiently to precipitate some sort of change in leadership. It's also going to cause greater suffering in Ukraine (as well as Russia), which ironically helps to maintain pressure on Russia by prolonging the exposure of the situation to a notoriously fickle Western populace.
My $.02 is that we have a time limit on how long we can do that with the potential of the Hyperinflation Demon rising...
93EXCivic said:Why are we talking about nukes? As far as I can tell, there is no threat of that actually happening at this time.
A guy who was desperate enough to start this might plausibly be desperate enough to not want to lose. Or to put it in other words, he might be willing to "destroy the village in order to save it..."
Am I the only one who thinks a deal may be reached in the near future?
I mean both sides are saying they are getting closer to an agreement. The Russians are taking heavy losses as are the Ukrainians in terms of people, equipment and economically. That could be part of the reason behind not transferring the MIGs to avoid messing up the peace talks. ultimately it is good for everyone in the world that this ends soon at the very least due to the economic damage.
stroker said:93EXCivic said:Why are we talking about nukes? As far as I can tell, there is no threat of that actually happening at this time.
A guy who was desperate enough to start this might plausibly be desperate enough to not want to lose. Or to put it in other words, he might be willing to "destroy the village in order to save it..."
That's what I see as well.
stroker said:93EXCivic said:Why are we talking about nukes? As far as I can tell, there is no threat of that actually happening at this time.
A guy who was desperate enough to start this might plausibly be desperate enough to not want to lose. Or to put it in other words, he might be willing to "destroy the village in order to save it..."
I mean that is possibility but I think it is a very remote chance. He certainly knows nukes would result in total destruction. That does no good for his vision of Russia. He has plenty of exit paths still and total control of the narrative in Russia. Also I see about zero chance Russia loses this war really. Personally to me, it seems pretty clear he does not want NATO entering the conflict and using nukes on Ukraine may very well cause China to step away since they have nuclear defense agreement with Ukraine. Also US intelligence has said that they see no evidence of an increase in the nuclear posture of Russia. Finally if Russia was planning on using nukes, why would they be going thru these peace talks?
In reply to 02Pilot :
These are the sorts of moral questions that ought to keep our leaders up at night. At the risk of sounding like an idealist, I think our moral and political objectives need to coincide. And from a moral and political perspective, our government's obligation is to preserve the life, liberty, and property of our country and its citizens. The calculus needed to achieve that end goal, though, is so complex I can't even begin to put it into words.
I know people right now who are about to have their electricity shut off because heating oil and gasoline have increased in price by 1/3 since the beginning of the year. No, they're not having to flee their country and seek asylum hundreds of miles from home, but worrying about freezing and being able to buy food because the market for crude oil became destabilized by some dumbass on the other side of the world ain't exactly living the dream.
Just out of curiosity, does anyone know if Russian air-to-air refueling hardware is compatible with NATO?
aircooled said:stuart in mn said:In reply to aircooled :
I don't claim to be an expert on military or diplomatic issues, it just seems like the situation is probably more complex than most civilians know about.
I absolutely agree with that.
Of course that is true and it's true for pretty much all international affairs, whether related to wars or not. The majority of the populace of the world (including much of the media) has never studied international affairs or warfare tactics and strategy, and really doesn't pay much attention to what is going on in the world unless it involves their country. Those who do are often not at liberty to say everything they know anyhow
volvoclearinghouse said:In reply to 02Pilot :
These are the sorts of moral questions that ought to keep our leaders up at night. At the risk of sounding like an idealist, I think our moral and political objectives need to coincide. And from a moral and political perspective, our government's obligation is to preserve the life, liberty, and property of our country and its citizens. The calculus needed to achieve that end goal, though, is so complex I can't even begin to put it into words.
I know people right now who are about to have their electricity shut off because heating oil and gasoline have increased in price by 1/3 since the beginning of the year. No, they're not having to flee their country and seek asylum hundreds of miles from home, but worrying about freezing and being able to buy food because the market for crude oil became destabilized by some dumbass on the other side of the world ain't exactly living the dream.
The domestic side of it is a whole different animal. Having a system of government that relies on the whims of a voting public with the collective attention span of a crack-addicted squirrel does not tend to lead to sound long-term policymaking, so we have to deal with the ups and downs as they come, defining and redefining what it means to protect life, liberty, and property, as those things themselves are redefined by voters. Two quotes about the failings of democracy come to mind: "Democracy is the worst form of government, except for all the others." (Churchill) and "The trouble with free elections is, you never know who is going to win." (Brezhnev).
Anyway, on the more relevant question of coinciding moral and political objectives in international relations, there's a huge amount of complexity and nuance. Are we talking long-term or short-term? Is there a universal moral compass to apply, or is it conditional? To give one simple example: was it moral for the Allies to bomb German cities, killing German civilians, in order to bring an end to the Nazi regime? Were those civilians harmless victims, or did many of them support the war economy by doing their jobs? How was this different from Germany bombing London during the Blitz?
tuna55 said:stroker said:93EXCivic said:Why are we talking about nukes? As far as I can tell, there is no threat of that actually happening at this time.
A guy who was desperate enough to start this might plausibly be desperate enough to not want to lose. Or to put it in other words, he might be willing to "destroy the village in order to save it..."
That's what I see as well.
I don't see that happening. Putin is aggressive but he's not outright insane, even in his current state. He's been grabbing his crotch for sure, but he knows that pushing The Button is at least political suicide if not actual, physical suicide.
Duke said:tuna55 said:stroker said:93EXCivic said:Why are we talking about nukes? As far as I can tell, there is no threat of that actually happening at this time.
A guy who was desperate enough to start this might plausibly be desperate enough to not want to lose. Or to put it in other words, he might be willing to "destroy the village in order to save it..."
That's what I see as well.
I don't see that happening. Putin is aggressive but he's not outright insane, even in his current state. He's been grabbing his crotch for sure, but he knows that pushing The Button is at least political suicide if not actual, physical suicide.
I see a small tactical nuke being used. Here's why: It's not Hiroshima, and something small would fracture NATO into two camps: retaliate or nah. It upps the ante just amount.
In reply to tuna55 :
But how does that help Russia? It majorly risks drawing NATO into a conflict and making it unwinnable. It seriously brings the possibility of nuclear war which isn't helpful to anyone. It risks angering one of your few allies in China as they have a nuclear defense treaty with Ukraine.
In reply to tuna55 :
Even a tiny nuke would unit the free world against Russia and we could and would force China to cut off any ties with them. Trade between China and Russia evidently barely surpasses $100 billion. Trade between China and the US is over $600 billion. Trade between China and EU is something over $800 billion. Russia would wind up in the same boat as North Korea.
If they can't broker a deal, I think that Russia will lay siege to Kiev and destroy it with artillery shelling. Will we just sit by and watch or declare a no-fly zone? A no-fly zone means we take out any and every threat to our aircraft.
What ever happens, Putin and Russia are screwed. Nothing will ever be the same again with regards to them and us. The EU will find new sources of energy and Russia will be alone and isolated. Nothing good ever happens sleeping with the enemy.
93EXCivic said:In reply to tuna55 :
But how does that help Russia? It majorly risks drawing NATO into a conflict and making it unwinnable. It seriously brings the possibility of nuclear war which isn't helpful to anyone. It risks angering one of your few allies in China as they have a nuclear defense treaty with Ukraine.
Because he could say "See this is because the west escalated with sanctions and arms supply, keep doing it and the nukes get bigger", he has 4500 modernized nukes at his disposal, and he knows the west doesn't benefit from obliterating Russia, especially because if even one ICBM gets through to Paris ot Washington or Berlin, the world ends. He can keep firing and we can't fire back really.
stuart in mn said:aircooled said:They were willing to transfer them to the US, but not directly to the Ukrainians. The US was unwilling to transfer them to Ukraine either, because...Putin would consider it an escalation.
I wouldn't want to be the person who had to make the decision on whether the US should have brokered the transfer. While Ukraine desperately needs the help, what if it would cause Russia to declare war against us?
As this drags on, more and more I think, "Let them." Stop tip-toeing around and accommodating dictators, and just do what's right. If Russia needs to declare war on us because we tried to stop them invading a sovereign nation, so be it. It's gonna be a quick conflict, at the end of which they won't have Ukraine, not even Crimea, or a standing army/airforce/navy to speak of.
Good discussion a few posts back about political goals and objectives vs. moral ones. I wish we prioritized the moral goals more often. What Russia is doing is wrong, plain and simple. So let's keep things simple, and stop them. Yes, it will take some sacrifice on the western world's part to do so, but at least we'll be on the right side of history. Maybe society can start to move forward again if we start doing what's right instead of what's politically expedient.
Flynlow (FS) said:stuart in mn said:aircooled said:They were willing to transfer them to the US, but not directly to the Ukrainians. The US was unwilling to transfer them to Ukraine either, because...Putin would consider it an escalation.
I wouldn't want to be the person who had to make the decision on whether the US should have brokered the transfer. While Ukraine desperately needs the help, what if it would cause Russia to declare war against us?
As this drags on, more and more I think, "Let them." Stop tip-toeing around and accommodating dictators, and just do what's right. If Russia needs to declare war on us because we tried to stop them invading a sovereign nation, so be it. It's gonna be a quick conflict, at the end of which they won't have Ukraine, not even Crimea, or a standing army/airforce/navy to speak of.
Good discussion a few posts about about political goals and objectives vs. moral ones. I wish we prioritized the moral goals more often. What Russia is doing is wrong, plain and simple. So let's keep things simple, and stop them. Yes, it will take some sacrifice on the western world's part to do so, but at least we'll be on the right side of history. Maybe society can start to move forward again if we start doing what's right instead of what's politically expedient.
Barring any nuclear escalation this would be how I see getting out of this quickly, and by quickly I mean a lot of drones bearing "welcome back to the stone age" gifts.
Flynlow (FS) said:stuart in mn said:aircooled said:They were willing to transfer them to the US, but not directly to the Ukrainians. The US was unwilling to transfer them to Ukraine either, because...Putin would consider it an escalation.
I wouldn't want to be the person who had to make the decision on whether the US should have brokered the transfer. While Ukraine desperately needs the help, what if it would cause Russia to declare war against us?
As this drags on, more and more I think, "Let them." Stop tip-toeing around and accommodating dictators, and just do what's right. If Russia needs to declare war on us because we tried to stop them invading a sovereign nation, so be it. It's gonna be a quick conflict, at the end of which they won't have Ukraine, not even Crimea, or a standing army/airforce/navy to speak of.
Good discussion a few posts back about political goals and objectives vs. moral ones. I wish we prioritized the moral goals more often. What Russia is doing is wrong, plain and simple. So let's keep things simple, and stop them. Yes, it will take some sacrifice on the western world's part to do so, but at least we'll be on the right side of history. Maybe society can start to move forward again if we start doing what's right instead of what's politically expedient.
Thank you for saying this. I bristle at the high-brow strategy stuff when there is innocent death every day. This is not some isolated conflict that we can ignore. It's a global war, going slowly enough intentionally by the aggressor to try and get as far ahead before retaliation. It's time the world realizes that.
In reply to tuna55 :
Nuclear attacks are only going to lead to further engagement by the west not less.
93EXCivic said:Why are we talking about nukes? As far as I can tell, there is no threat of that actually happening at this time.
The simple answer is: Because Putin wants us to.
The reality is, nuclear war essentially means world destruction. Russia and Putin are well aware of this. You might say "well Putin is insane or dying, he may not care". While that might even be true, there is no red button he runs over to and pushes, for that exact reason. There are certainly a number of people that decision has to go through, and they all have families and like living, so the reality is much closer to "uh, yeah, no, we ain't nuking the US because they shot our planes down"
The only realistic way strategic nukes get uses is if NATO marches into Russia and starts laying it to waste, which I think I can say, is highly unlikely.
But... if Russia can casually mention nukes every once and a while and the West takes that as "oh my god, he will use them if we piss him off" then he can pretty much do anything he wants.
You'll need to log in to post.
