Russo-Ukrainian War 2014-23 and Invasion

[alfred russel]

The damage done to Ukraine is considerable of course, but that damage is being done, now, in what is clearly a failed effort. Absent Russia using nukes, the lesson to be learned from this debacle will be "Wow, invading another country sucks and maybe is a pretty bad idea". If Russia uses its nuclear umbrella as a effective tool to blackmail the West from continued support, and hence gets some of their goals met, then in fact the lesson will be that every country must get nukes of their own in order to deter larger nuclear armed countries.

Are you blocking the cold war from your memory bank? The USSR's nuclear arsenal was behind like basically all western international decisions for most of it. No other country sought to emulate the USSR's nuclear arsenal because it would be an obvious losing play, even if it bought them a bit more deference internationally. In the end the USSR spent a lot of the cold war acting like a shithead and ultimately collapsed because the system was dumb.

Not sure why the western playbook needs to be different now that Russia is acting more like the old USSR.

[Berkut]

The damage done to Ukraine is considerable of course, but that damage is being done, now, in what is clearly a failed effort. Absent Russia using nukes, the lesson to be learned from this debacle will be "Wow, invading another country sucks and maybe is a pretty bad idea". If Russia uses its nuclear umbrella as a effective tool to blackmail the West from continued support, and hence gets some of their goals met, then in fact the lesson will be that every country must get nukes of their own in order to deter larger nuclear armed countries.

Are you blocking the cold war from your memory bank? The USSR's nuclear arsenal was behind like basically all western international decisions for most of it. No other country sought to emulate the USSR's nuclear arsenal because it would be an obvious losing play, even if it bought them a bit more deference internationally. In the end the USSR spent a lot of the cold war acting like a shithead and ultimately collapsed because the system was dumb.

Not sure why the western playbook needs to be different now that Russia is acting more like the old USSR.

Who says it does need to be different (actually, it is clearly different, but that is another argument)

People seem to be suggesting that the US and the West allow Russia to blackmail them with the threat of nuclear war.

Note that the USSR managed to lose wars without threatening to use nukes. They got their ass kicked in Afghanistan, and didn't threaten to nuke anyone over it.

Russia is not at all acting like the old USSR. Russia is not the USSR, it is radically weaker, and much less ideological and more fascist. In many ways, it is much more dangerous as a result.

[crazy canuck]

The damage done to Ukraine is considerable of course, but that damage is being done, now, in what is clearly a failed effort. Absent Russia using nukes, the lesson to be learned from this debacle will be "Wow, invading another country sucks and maybe is a pretty bad idea". If Russia uses its nuclear umbrella as a effective tool to blackmail the West from continued support, and hence gets some of their goals met, then in fact the lesson will be that every country must get nukes of their own in order to deter larger nuclear armed countries.

Are you blocking the cold war from your memory bank? The USSR's nuclear arsenal was behind like basically all western international decisions for most of it. No other country sought to emulate the USSR's nuclear arsenal because it would be an obvious losing play, even if it bought them a bit more deference internationally. In the end the USSR spent a lot of the cold war acting like a shithead and ultimately collapsed because the system was dumb.

Not sure why the western playbook needs to be different now that Russia is acting more like the old USSR.

The reason it is called a Cold War is because there was a lot of war type things going on without the use of nuclear weapons.

It was not the fact that the USSR had nuclear weapons that dictated a lot of policy in the west. Rather it was a fight against the spread of communism into nonaligned countries that dictated a lot of policy and was the reason for a lot of combat during the Cold War.

[OttoVonBismarck]

Part of it too is the U.S. decided on a course of action of basically trying to wall off the Communist bloc countries from the rest of the world as much as possible. To varying degrees most of the Western alliance went along with this effort, albeit with some notable exceptions and their populations were generally much more sympathetic to Communism than America's was. This created a very stark bipolar world, and then you had the Non-Aligned Movement that essentially wanted to be able to have extensive trading ties with both blocs but without committing to either. This mentality governed U.S. and U.S.S.R thinking across a range of policy areas and governed strategic interests.

[Sheilbh]

People seem to be suggesting that the US and the West allow Russia to blackmail them with the threat of nuclear war.

Note that the USSR managed to lose wars without threatening to use nukes. They got their ass kicked in Afghanistan, and didn't threaten to nuke anyone over it.

The USSR maybe didn't talk about it as much as Putin, but their equivalent of Defcon levels was at higher points during the Cold War than it is now. The threat was realer and expressed through higher states of nuclear alert, while now it is perceived as higher but primarily because of rhetoric. Similarly we know Western allies assessed higher risks at several points in the Cold War because of movements that indicated increased readiness normally as exercises - and vice versa.

My suspicion is that if Russia really wanted to set alarm bells ringing in the West they wouldn't be reiterating rhetorical points - they'd rely on (as they did in the Cold War) Western intelligene picking up signals of nuclear systems on the move, or chatter at relevant command centres or explicitly raising their alert level. Just talking about it more without those sorts of "real" signals could be a double bluff, but I can't see what purpose that would serve.

Of course, as you say, I think all the stuff about a future threat of nukes misses that Russia has substantially benefited from the nuclear threat already. There's no doubt in my mind that absent nukes the West/NATO would already have intervened. We know very clearly that there are lines NATO states won't cross - we learned that especially during Mariupol and Zelensky's repeated calls for a no fly zone. The line is that we won't take action that results in our military shooting at the military of another nuclear power (this was also flagged by Putin when he launched the invasion that a "direct clash with the Russian military" would prompt a huge reaction).

I think the current worry and focus on tactical nukes or a dirty bomb slightly elides that nukes have been a core part of Russia's strategy from day one - they've allowed an aggressive war, including measures and attacks aimed at civilians. Russia does not fear, because it will not face, comparable costs.

[Duque de Bragança]

Regarding the grain deal which Russia just cancelled, Turkey and Ukraine will continue the Black Sea grain convoy system despite Russia pulling out. Turkey is basically throwing down the gauntlet to Russia to attack it's navy if it wants to blockade Ukraine.

A good move; Erdogan playing a helpful role in international affiars

Does not happen too often with him. Second time maybe? 

[Sheilbh]

A good move; Erdogan playing a helpful role in international affiars

I think Erdogan's role in this war is really interesting.

Ukraine has not been shy in calling out countries it wants more help from or things is being insufficiently supportive. It has not done that much with Turkey. Instead Turkey is one of the only countries in the region both Ukraine and Russia have maintained decent relations with following the invasion. They've also been involved in basically every negotiations we're aware of - and I suspect are used even more as a back channel.

My instinct is to trust the Ukrainian leadership who are not repeatedly calling out Turkey and instead using their best offices. It might not be the same role as the one rest of the west is (or should be) playing (although the bayraktars help) - but I think Turkey is playing an important one we'll only hear more about after the war.

[grumbler]

Are you blocking the cold war from your memory bank? The USSR's nuclear arsenal was behind like basically all western international decisions for most of it. No other country sought to emulate the USSR's nuclear arsenal because it would be an obvious losing play, even if it bought them a bit more deference internationally. In the end the USSR spent a lot of the cold war acting like a shithead and ultimately collapsed because the system was dumb.

Not sure why the western playbook needs to be different now that Russia is acting more like the old USSR.

Are you blocking the cold war from your memory bank? China developed nuclear weapons during the Cold War, as did India, Pakistan, North Korea, France, and probably Israel.  Some (China, UK, US, France) sought to emulate the USSR's nuclear arsenal, while the others were satisfied with sub-intercontinental nuclear forces.  Saying that no one sought to emulate the USSR's intercontinental nuclear arsenal is daft.  Nations emulated the Soviet Union's power without needing to deploy the numbers the USSR needed.

[alfred russel]

Are you blocking the cold war from your memory bank? The USSR's nuclear arsenal was behind like basically all western international decisions for most of it. No other country sought to emulate the USSR's nuclear arsenal because it would be an obvious losing play, even if it bought them a bit more deference internationally. In the end the USSR spent a lot of the cold war acting like a shithead and ultimately collapsed because the system was dumb.

Not sure why the western playbook needs to be different now that Russia is acting more like the old USSR.

Are you blocking the cold war from your memory bank? China developed nuclear weapons during the Cold War, as did India, Pakistan, North Korea, France, and probably Israel.  Some (China, UK, US, France) sought to emulate the USSR's nuclear arsenal, while the others were satisfied with sub-intercontinental nuclear forces.  Saying that no one sought to emulate the USSR's intercontinental nuclear arsenal is daft.  Nations emulated the Soviet Union's power without needing to deploy the numbers the USSR needed.

To this day, the only country that competes with Russia in terms of the number of nuclear weapons is the US. Besides those two, i don't think another country even has 1,000 nuclear warheads.

[Threviel]

Yeah, China being able to hit the commies with a few nukes would make it impossible for the commies to invade. Likewise any Russian neighbour. Putin knowing that the price for all that glorious Ukrainian mud is mushroom clouds over a few Russian cities would have made Ukraine immune.

They don't need hundreds, they just need to be able to credibly threaten hits with a few.

[alfred russel]

Who says it does need to be different (actually, it is clearly different, but that is another argument)

People seem to be suggesting that the US and the West allow Russia to blackmail them with the threat of nuclear war.

Note that the USSR managed to lose wars without threatening to use nukes. They got their ass kicked in Afghanistan, and didn't threaten to nuke anyone over it.

Russia is not at all acting like the old USSR. Russia is not the USSR, it is radically weaker, and much less ideological and more fascist. In many ways, it is much more dangerous as a result.

During the cold war the US never committed to opposing a soviet war on the scale it has in Ukraine. I would guess that aid to Ukraine in terms of financial cost has approached if not exceeded the annual russian military budget. Weapons systems that are superior to anything Russia possesses have been delivered.

I agree that Russia is radically weaker than the USSR--it is basically a country with the economy of Canada trying to act like a military superpower. I agree it is more dangerous as a result.

[Barrister]

Are you blocking the cold war from your memory bank? China developed nuclear weapons during the Cold War, as did India, Pakistan, North Korea, France, and probably Israel.  Some (China, UK, US, France) sought to emulate the USSR's nuclear arsenal, while the others were satisfied with sub-intercontinental nuclear forces.  Saying that no one sought to emulate the USSR's intercontinental nuclear arsenal is daft.  Nations emulated the Soviet Union's power without needing to deploy the numbers the USSR needed.

As I understand it, China, UK and France did not and do not "emulate" the USSR/Russia's nuclear arsenal.  While Russia has thousands of warheads, those countries just have a few hundred each.  What they do have though (as you pointed out) are ballistic missiles such that those warheads are capable of reaching anywhere on the earth, even if not in such quantities to ensure mutual destruction.

[Barrister]

During the cold war the US never committed to opposing a soviet war on the scale it has in Ukraine. I would guess that aid to Ukraine in terms of financial cost has approached if not exceeded the annual russian military budget. Weapons systems that are superior to anything Russia possesses have been delivered.

I agree that Russia is radically weaker than the USSR--it is basically a country with the economy of Canada trying to act like a military superpower. I agree it is more dangerous as a result.

I'm trying to think of any post-WWII wars that the USSR undertook on a similar scale.

1956 Hungary and 1968 Czechoslovakia saw the USSR bring in hundreds of thousands of troops to both countries - on a scale even exceeding Ukraine.  1979 Afghanistan as well.

I think the difference between Ukraine and those other countries was A: Ukraine had a friendly government over the last 8 years with which the West had time to build up trust and confidence.  B: Ukraine managed to hold out until more and better supplies could be brought in.  You could kind of tell by how comparatively little support Ukraine was getting pre-invasion that the West was prepared to see Ukraine fall relatively quickly.

[grumbler]

To this day, the only country that competes with Russia in terms of the number of nuclear weapons is the US. Besides those two, i don't think another country even has 1,000 nuclear warheads.

No country needs to emulate Russian numbers to emulate Russian capabilities.  Your thinking about nuclear forces seems to be stuck in the 1970s.

[Josquius]

No, I am curious as to why YOU have flopped sides, actually.

So you cannot answer the question of what number of people is determinant of "self-determination". You say it is a "fluffy" question.

LOL, I see what you're doing there. Trying to present not answering a question that doesn't have a simple answer as merely dodging the question.
It really is something where there is no one size fits all scientific answer of "10 million people and not one less to be a country!".

What I am doing is pointing out that statements like "People, all people everywhere, deserve self determination." are quite obviously not true.

You've just agreed with me, by throwing in about a hundred various other conditions that make it pretty clear that in fact not all people, not anywhere, have any kind of right to self determination, but rather such a thing is radically contingent on a huge number of other factors.

All people deserve self determination. This is true and I've said nothing against this.
Its purely your interpretation of the statement that any random guy can one day decide he wants to be a sovereign citizen .

I am still confused as to the utility of establishing that invading another country and murdering as many of them as possible ought to be established as an overriding factor though.

You're confused as to why stopping the war would be a good thing?