The Unthinkable is now reality. - Page 3 - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

Political issues and parties in Europe's nation states, the E.U. & Russia.

Moderator: PoFo Europe Mods

Forum rules: No one line posts please. This is an international political discussion forum, so please post in English only.
#15168374
@B0ycey

B0ycey wrote:This is kinda like saying you cannot see why Fiji can't reach the Moon next month.


But this is like you saying that Ukraine should just roll over and die and just allow themselves to be a victim. Going around begging for international help and hoping somebody will help you against a giant like Russia is foolhardy. It also sounds like you would be OK with your government not doing it's job to assure your security of Great Britain by not being prepared to fight off or deter foreign invaders who would otherwise enslave you. Because that is what you are asking the Ukrainians to do. You are asking them to just roll over and die and accept enslavement without doing what they got to do to ensure their own security of their citizens.

And for them to do that (ensure their own security), or any country that borders Russia that is not a NATO state, they got to acquire nuclear weapons so that deterrence prevails. I am assuming you would want your government to do that for you. So why would you expect it to be any different for a Ukrainian citizen and what he or she expects of their government? Would you want your government to just roll over and die, play victim and allow you to be enslaved by a foreign power? That's what you are asking the Ukrainians and other countries in a similar situation to do. Pure and simple.
#15168378
Politics_Observer wrote:[
But this is like you saying that Ukraine should just roll over and die and just allow themselves to be a victim. Going around begging for international help and hoping somebody will help you against a giant like Russia is foolhardy. It also sounds like you would be OK with your government not doing it's job to assure your security of Great Britain by not being prepared to fight off or deter foreign invaders who would otherwise enslave you. Because that is what you are asking the Ukrainians to do. You are asking them to just roll over and die and accept enslavement without doing what they got to do to ensure their own security of their citizens.

And for them to do that (ensure their own security), or any country that borders Russia that is not a NATO state, they got to acquire nuclear weapons so that deterrence prevails. I am assuming you would want your government to do that for you. So why would you expect it to be any different for a Ukrainian citizen and what he or she expects of their government? Would you want your government to just roll over and die, play victim and allow you to be enslaved by a foreign power? That's what you are asking the Ukrainians and other countries in a similar situation to do. Pure and simple.


The problem here is you live in a fantasy world where acquiring nuclear weapons is a viable choice. It isn't. Ukraine have no means to make nuclear weapons the same way Fiji cannot reach the Moon. And it isn't rolling over asking for NATO membership anyway. It is basically their only course of action. Without that there is no other option for Ukraine if they wanted to attack Russia in order to gain control of Donbass that you keep saying they should do - so perhaps you should be willing to fight amongst your Ukrainian brothers given you are asking them kamikaze themselves into oblivion. It would be like bow and arrows against the lightening otherwise and would give Russia an excuse to enter Ukraine and actually go all the way into Kiev without much opposition outside the West of course.

As for the UK giving up their nuclear weapons, I strongly oppose renewing Trident so that is basically what I am calling for now. I see no reason to have nuclear weapons whilst we are part of NATO. NATO is the nuclear deterrent as you have enough bombs to blow up the world ten times over and you have signed up to protect us. What difference does another 200 bombs really make given this is the pact we have?
#15168380
@B0ycey

It's NOT a fantasy land. YOU are living in a fantasy land. Reality is that it's a the "law of the jungle" there in international relations. It's "might makes right." Acquiring nuclear weapons IS a viable choice and a logical choice given that reality. It would be very foolish for some nations not to acquire nuclear weapons given this paradigm in international relations of "might makes right" and "law of the jungle." You know that's just the way it is. There is the way the world ought to be and then there is the way the world is. It's not right, but that's the way it is. And some of these smaller countries have to do something to ensure the security and independence of their citizens. That IS the reality that you are not acknowledging because you are an apologist for Russian military aggression against it's weaker neighbor Ukraine. These smaller countries can't just roll over and die and be a victim like you want them to be. Maybe you would do that, but I wouldn't advise anybody else to do that.

North Korea got nuclear weapons, India did it, Pakistan did it. Iran is trying to do it. Ukraine had them and have the brain power to make them. So IT IS a viable option because it has been done by other, smaller, weaker countries elsewhere successful and Ukraine can do the same if it is smart about it. I think the viable option for Ukraine before they are completely invaded and occupied and enslaved by the Russians is to first acquire nuclear weapons and then after acquiring those weapons, launch a surprise night time attack to retake land stolen from them at gun point by the Russians.

That way, when Russia tries to prevent Ukraine from retaking land stolen from them they will be confronted with a nuclear armed Ukraine the next time around when they try to prevent Ukraine from retaking back it's stolen land. Ukraine shouldn't just stand idly by and let their land and territorial integrity just be violated and the the freedom and independence of their people threatened.

Maybe you are OK with that, but I know I wouldn't be if I were in their shoes. Something tells me you are unconcerned for the security of smaller countries like Ukraine and are more interested in just appeasing the Russian bear even if it is wrong and that you go along with this whole "might makes right" paradigm in international relations given you seem unconcerned with the security and rights of smaller nations. I certainly wouldn't want to be a victim or take a victim mentality when my land is invaded and my people are threatened with slavery and occupation. I would be looking for ways to fight back and get my land back. Any self respecting person or nation would do that. Maybe you are not that way, but that's your choice. That ain't my choice.
#15168382
Yeah, you're definitely high as a kite. How is Ukraine going to develop nuclear weapons @Politics_Observer given they can't even develop the own weapons during their civil war? You are selling them their weapons remember. Besides, why are you against them joining NATO given your strong opinion on this? Also Russia have no intention in entering Ukraine whilst we are in stalemate in any case so it isn't like Ukraine need defending I might add as this is an internal affair.
#15168384
@B0ycey

I am not high as a kite brother, I just think you are an apologist for Russian aggression and can't see the world for the way it is. You're just OK with other countries rolling over and dying rather than fighting for their rights as independent countries. That's what you are all about. You don't have a leg to stand on. So you can name call all you want but at the end of the day, you are OK with Russia invading it's smaller neighbors and don't like the idea of those smaller neighbors not playing the victim and actually doing something to fight back and ensure their own security and take back what rightfully belongs to them. The Ukrainians got to do something but it seems you want Ukraine to be completed enslaved and occupied by the Russians and are OK with Russian military aggression against it's neighbors.

That's all I hear from you. You don't seem to be logical that's for sure or bothering to take the time really see the other side of the coin. There is no real "rules based order" that governs international relations between countries today that is enforceable or realistic. It's still a "might makes right" and "law of the jungle" paradigm out there and smaller countries have to accept that reality, acknowledge and then adapt to it by acquiring nuclear weapons to ensure their security. You don't have any real solutions to the problem that is tune with the reality of the "might makes right" and "law of the jungle" paradigm that in fact governs international relations between countries today.
Last edited by Politics_Observer on 21 Apr 2021 19:11, edited 1 time in total.
#15168385
Politics_Observer wrote:@B0ycey

I am not high as a kite brother, I just think you are an apologist for Russian aggression and can't see the world for the way it is. You're just OK with other countries rolling over and dying rather than fighting for their rights as independent countries. That's what you are all about. You don't have a leg to stand on realistically speaking. So you can name call all you want but at the end of the day, you are OK with Russia invading it's smaller neighbors and don't like the idea of those smaller neighbors not playing the victim and actually doing something to fight back and ensure their own security. The Ukrainians got to do something but it seems you want Ukraine to be completed enslaved and occupied by the Russians and are OK with Russian military aggression against it's neighbors. That's all I hear from you. You don't seem to be logical that's for sure.


I am not for or against anyone. I am just being pragmatic. Ukraine do not have the means to built nuclear weapons and that is just a fact. Thinking otherwise is just dumb. However pursuing NATO membership is something that is possible IF AMERICA was willing to let them join. Do you accept their membership? That is the only opinion that matters given you are asking them to act in a way Russia have already said would send them into oblivion.
#15168386
@B0ycey

I am being pragmatic too. I am not being unpragmatic. The fact and reality is, if you are a smaller country that has an aggressive bigger neighbor you need nuclear weapons to ensure deterrence prevails. You can't depend on the good will and mercy of your larger neighbor. You certainly don't want to let Russia get away with stealing your land. This is why Ukraine should arm itself with nuclear weapons first then retake it's land back by force. That way people will see that you can't just get away with doing that to Ukraine and people will leave Ukraine alone. It's that or just roll over and die and allow your country to be continually violated in the future and possibly be enslaved again.
#15168391
Politics_Observer wrote:@B0ycey

I am being pragmatic too. I am not being unpragmatic. The fact and reality is, if you are a smaller country that has an aggressive bigger neighbor you need nuclear weapons to ensure deterrence prevails. You can't depend on the good will and mercy of your larger neighbor. You certainly don't want to let Russia get away with stealing your land. This is why Ukraine should arm itself with nuclear weapons first then retake it's land back by force. That way people will see that you can't just get away with doing that to Ukraine and people will leave Ukraine alone.


How are you being pragmatic, you are saying they should build nuclear weapons? :?:

They DO NOT have the means to build them. They do not even make their own weapons given you sell them to them. Also Russia would blow up any facility that was part of this program in any case and that is ignoring the time to enrich Uranium along with everything else they need to set up. You might as well said Ukraine should built a moon lazer beam to strike Russia given it has as much possibility of 0% of ever happening. It doesn't matter whether enquiring nuclear weapons would be a game changer or not given it isn't an option. I CANNOT MAKE THIS ANY CLEARER than saying it as it is. However NATO membership IS POSSIBLE if America accepted their membership. Do you accept that or not? That is the only thing that matters in reality if you are indeed pragmatic as that is their only realistic option.
#15168413
@B0ycey

You don't know if they have means to build those weapons or not and even if they didn't, that doesn't mean they can't get the means to build them. I am pretty sure, for example, Australia has the means to build them if they want, they just don't. It could be the case with Ukraine as well. Aside from that, given that Ukraine isn't your country you don't really care what happens to them so long as it doesn't affect your security in any way, you are a Russian apologist for military aggression that effectively robs others of land that legitimately belongs to them at gunpoint. That's a logical conclusion from our conversation. Plenty of smaller countries have gotten nuclear weapons successfully even when other countries didn't want them to have them. So we can dismiss your assertion that it is not feasible or "pragmatic."

That being said, perhaps you should ask the Ukrainians themselves who are loyal to Ukraine if they feel it was a mistake to give up their nuclear arsenal in return for the worthless paper guarantees they got. See what they say and then try to explain to them why they shouldn't get nuclear weapons in light of this Russian invasion and robbery of their land. Let me know how it goes for you.
#15168417
Politics_Observer wrote:Aside from that, given that Ukraine isn't your country you don't really care what happens to them so long as it doesn't affect your security in any way, you are a Russian apologist for military aggression that effectively robs others of land that legitimately belongs to them at gunpoint. That's a logical conclusion from our conversation.


Or perhaps the OBVIOUSLY conclusion is I live in the real world. A real world where this is a civil war that currently has a ceasefire agreed by Ukraine and a real world where Russia has not crossed the border where their troops reside. A real world where Russia have said that Ukraine would be obliviated if they went into Donbass and a real world in which Ukraine don't have the means, money nor the time to make nuclear weapons that you think is an option for them in any case.

What has happened before isn't what is happening now. Ukraine cannot beat Russia and they don't have any other moves except NATO admission. But given you aren't interested in that nor sending American troops into Ukraine to help them out in a cause that may well end their existence by crossing a "Red Line", I find it rich that you think I don't care about their plight given you aren't sacrificing anything but asking for their suicide anyway. So I do care actually by being pragmatic. I ask for a diplomatic solution that may well mean breaking the country up but would allow them to make their own trade arrangements and military alliances in accordance to that happening. Something that is pragmatic and achievable without the need to fire a single nuclear weapon. Also Ukraine and Russia at war affects me more than you given it is in Europe. So no, I am not interested in Russia bombing the shit out of Ukraine when their intelligence picks up on your insane idea of making nuclear bombs in order to attack Russia given they have already set out their position out to anyone who is listening. :roll:
Last edited by B0ycey on 21 Apr 2021 21:51, edited 1 time in total.
#15168418
Politics_Observer wrote:@Juin

So here is a question I have. How would you or Russia feel if it's neighbors, instead of joining NATO got their own nuclear weapons arsenal to defend themselves? NATO is no longer at their border and Russia no longer can use NATO as a boogeyman to justify invading other countries. The other countries could also launch their nuclear weapons at Russia if Russia tries to invade their countries. This would deter the Russians from invading and the Russians don't have to worry about being invaded ever because NATO is not there border. All sides have their security assured, right?

If the Russians aren't a threat to their neighbors and are just invading their neighbors because of NATO, this alternative solution would make Russia happy then and their neighbors happy because then everybody would have their security assured, right? They will just have a bunch of nuclear armed states with those weapons pointed at them to ensure they don't get invaded. Everybody's happy then.

And I have to ask, do you think those smaller countries on Russia's borders deserve to live in security and to choose their own destiny without coercion or influence from anybody like Russia for example? This alternative solution would satisfy you and if not what would be your alternative solution to satisfy all parties involved and their security needs?




Your questions are hypotheticals, and I will address them as best as I can.

Nukes, so far, are the equalizers. A weak nation, with a powerful aggressive neighbour, is well advised to if they can. That is if they can. It may not be a cost free project as the powerful neighbour may not sit aside quietly and see an neighbour arm up. If Ukraine acquires nukes Russia may not be as quick to invade. The ugly side of the coin is that any sign of any such project going on in Ukraine may prompt Russia to invade immediately.

And this is not a uniquely Russian issue. Israel doesnt want its neighbours to acquire nukes either, and has intervened to foil such projects in Iraq and Syria. The US does not want Iran to acquire nukes. China definitely does not want Taiwan to acquire nukes.

Russia as a threat to their neighbours.

I hope I never left the impression that Russia was not a threat to its neighbours. Russian defense policies- Czarist, Bolshevik or Putin- has been basically the same. The further off the enemy has to start the invasion of the Russian sphere, the better for Russia, as defense in depth appears to have been its preferred approach. This has meant Russia pushing its frontiers as far outwards as possible. Naturally that has meant dominating the smaller nations in its path.

You leave the impression if Russia objects to its neighbours joining Nato it should be ok with same neighbours acquiring nukes. I dont think that follows. Russia can both object to Ukraine joining Nato as well as Ukraine acquiring nukes. Is that fair? No, of course not, it is not fair. Life is not fair. And Russia is not unique in not playing fair. Is it fair that Israel bombs its neighbours when they try to acquire nukes?

Do the small nations in Russia's sphere deserve to live in security? A good question, but should not be limited only to Russia. Do small nations of the world deserve to live in security, free from the predatory actions of powerful Imperialists?

Bottom line is it sucks to be a small and weak nation.

Politics_Observer wrote:@Juin

If I was a general, serving a non NATO member state that shared a border with Russia, I would probably recommend to my civilian authorities to begin a secret covert nuclear program and keep it very secret with as few people knowing about it as possible given Russia's recent actions. That's what any self respecting general serving in the armed forces of a non-NATO border state to Russia would recommend to his government. They have a duty to ensure that deterrence prevails and the security of their country is assured. It's either that or taking a very big risk of being occupied, dominated and controlled by the Russians for a very long time. Some of these non-NATO states already are dominated by the Russians.




As we agreed in earlier discussions, nukes are the great equalizers. It goes without saying that a small nation acquiring them can go a long ways serving as a deterrence. Only to some extent, though. Dont forget that Israel was still attacked by its neighbours in 1967 and 1973, long after Israel already had nukes, if my memory serves me right.

But are you also taking into account that any hint of Ukraine looking for nukes may prompt an immediate attack from Russia? I really doubt that Ukraine can develop nukes in a program so secret as to avoid discovery by Russians. For crying out loud a significant portion of Ukraine's populations are ethnic Russians with loyalties towards Moscow. Kiev has a significant Russian speaking population. How is the government of Ukraine gonna go about a secret nuke project that is leak proof?

B0ycey wrote:OMG! Another [usermention=22068]

Rumour has it Navalny has days to live and unlike when he returned to Russia,



Nothing in Navalny's resume suggests it is wise to hand the reins of the Kremlin to him. That will be Gorbachev all over, and worse. Navalny in all likelihood will see the dismantling of the Russian Federation, just as Gorbachev above him was so over his head that the mighty USSR crumbled under him.

B0ycey wrote:@Politics_Observer, a couple of weeks now and Russia haven't crossed the border. Ignoring the obvious problem that Ukraine would have to develop nuclear weapons which doesn't take days I might add and more importantly would require Russia not to bomb the sites if they tried, Ukraine would have a better chance trying to get into NATO in any case given America already have more bombs then they need. That won't happen of course as it wouldn't be in America's interest especially for them to join but I would say it is Ukraines only move today except of course diplomacy if they want a resolution. And if they don't do that then the other option is not to give Russia an excuse to cross the border (the current course of action). They don't have any other options. Stop making out Ukraine can do anything except what they are doing. :roll:




It is a no brainer. There is no way Ukraine can develop nukes without Russia knowing. It can be guaranteed that any sign of any such going ons in Ukraine will trigger a devastating Russian attack.

Israel attacks folks developing nukes that may threaten her all the time, why should Russia not be expected to?
#15168425
@Juin

Of course, the bigger stronger and nuclear armed neighbor would not sit idly by as the smaller countries arm up with nuclear weapons to defend themselves. They don't want to be successfully deterred. They want to rule over, dominate, subjugate these countries, not treat them as equals. Not respect their rights or respect them at all. NOOOO. They don't want to do that. It's what bigger countries do honestly.

This is why total secrecy is of utmost importance for the smaller countries. They have to take great care and do it in a way that goes undetected by the bigger, stronger and nuclear armed neighbor. That is until they detonate their first nuclear bomb, then everybody will know they have just acquired those weapons. They should probably take care to secretly manufacture several of those weapons first before testing their first bomb, that way that got a bit of an arsenal already in play once everybody discovers they have nukes.
#15168428
Politics_Observer wrote:@Juin

Of course, the bigger stronger and nuclear armed neighbor would not sit idly by as the smaller countries arm up with nuclear weapons to defend themselves. They don't want to be successfully deterred. They want to rule over, dominate, subjugate these countries, not treat them as equals. Not respect their rights or respect them at all. NOOOO. They don't want to do that. It's what bigger countries do honestly.

This is why total secrecy is of utmost importance for the smaller countries. They have to take great care and do it in a way that goes undetected by the bigger, stronger and nuclear armed neighbor. That is until they detonate their first nuclear bomb, then everybody will know they have just acquired those weapons. They should probably take care to secretly manufacture several of those weapons first before testing their first bomb, that way that got a bit of an arsenal already in play once everybody discovers they have nukes.

You still seem determined to kill off all Ukrainians, @Politics_Observer. I'll ask you again: what do you have against them? Why do you hate Ukrainians so much? :eh:
#15168431
Potemkin wrote:You still seem determined to kill off all Ukrainians, @Politics_Observer. I'll ask you again: what do you have against them? Why do you hate Ukrainians so much? :eh:


Maybe he just wants a larger conflict to erupt so that he US can swoop in or something. DUnno.
#15168432
Rancid wrote:Maybe he just wants a larger conflict to erupt so that he US can swoop in or something. DUnno.

It certainly seems that way. Or maybe he just took a few too many blows to the head during his time in Afghanistan. Who knows?
#15168433
@Potemkin

:lol: I think quite the opposite is true. You seem to want to make the Ukrainians easy prey. If you make yourself easy prey in the jungle then you get eaten. States which do not possess these weapons are easy prey for stronger countries, especially those who do possess these weapons. You would think people would understand this concept.

It's easy for me to understand. But then again, I was reading about how Ukraine, at the time they inherited their nuclear arsenal from the former Soviet Union honestly and genuinely did not understand the concept of deterrence as part of assuring their own national security.

I mean, didn't the Ukrainians have any professional generals who were true military professionals to consult who would have or SHOULD have told them this before giving up their nuclear arsenal? It didn't seem like it and seemed that all the true military professionals at the time were in Moscow.

@Rancid

The US wouldn't have to swoop in because Ukraine would then be able to take care of itself without any assistance from the U.S. They could successfully deter foreign invasions on their own (not that we would intervene to fight the Russians given Ukraine is not a NATO state). And that sets them up to be more independent. It keeps us from having to spend money to beef up NATO to meet our security commitments when Russia starts rumbling tanks through countries that are easy prey bordering NATO countries. Probably wouldn't need to have as many troops in that part of the world. That would save us money. Plus it would be easier to trade with Ukraine too given they are more independent.
#15168439
Politics_Observer wrote:@Rancid

The US wouldn't have to swoop in because Ukraine would then be able to take care of itself without any assistance from the U.S. They could successfully deter foreign invasions on their own (not that we would intervene to fight the Russians given Ukraine is not a NATO state). And that sets them up to be more independent. It keeps us from having to spend money to beef up NATO to meet our security commitments when Russia starts rumbling tanks through countries that are easy prey bordering NATO countries. Probably wouldn't need to have as many troops in that part of the world. That would save us money. Plus it would be easier to trade with Ukraine too given they are more independent.


I understand, but maybe it's time to raise the white flag and allow Russia to do what it wants with Europe.
It's time for Russia to lead the world.
#15168447
@Rancid

I am not so sure I would want Russia leading the world. I would prefer the Chinese personally. They seem smarter than the Russians.

@Potemkin

International relations can sometimes be summed as one black guy told me one time: "Barracuda eats the fish." In this case, Russia was the barracuda and the fish was Ukraine.
#15168449
Politics_Observer wrote:@Potemkin


It's easy for me to understand. But then again, I was reading about how Ukraine, at the time they inherited their nuclear arsenal from the former Soviet Union honestly and genuinely did not understand the concept of deterrence as part of assuring their own national security.

I mean, didn't the Ukrainians have any professional generals who were true military professionals to consult who would have or SHOULD have told them this before giving up their nuclear arsenal? It didn't seem like it and seemed that all the true military professionals at the time were in Moscow.




I believe you are misreading the state of affairs back in 1991 when the Soviet Union was dissolved.

Ukrainian nationalism was a thing still in the distant future. The leaderships of the ex Soviet Republics were all cut of the same cloth. They had all been part of the ruling Communist Party. The dissolution was not seen by the various ex Republics as a hostile affair. Yeltsin as a matter of fact saw Russia as also seeking independence from the Soviet Federation as Ukraine. The ex Soviets even agreed to formation of a loose confederation of states.

Are you saying the US should have backed a dissolution of the USSR wherein each ex Soviet Republic would have inherited a share of the nukes the USSR? That would have meant Nato looking at something like 12 nuclear armed States emerging from the USSR! You think, everything considered, that that would have been the best outcome for Nato?

For starters Armenia's own share of nukes would have been directed at Nato member Turkey.
#15168452
@Juin

I am not so sure if I would have given up those nukes if I were in the position of those smaller states. I would probably would have kept them if I were in their position. However, from the perspective of the interests of NATO, it's debatable whether having all those nuclear armed states would threaten it's security. I would have to think long and hard about it. There are trade offs and benefits to every decision. If you encourage these smaller countries to disarm and give up their nukes, they then become easy prey for larger, stronger countries. These smaller countries, I would think, would be aware of this. There is a risk for NATO not encouraging the smaller countries to disarm their nukes but on the other hand, their could be risks for NATO by encouraging these small countries to disarm and give up those nukes too. You have to look at which risks pose the greatest threat to NATO from the perspective of NATO security and choose accordingly.

@KurtFF8 Litwin wages a psyops war here but we […]

[usermention=41202] @late[/usermention] Are you[…]

[usermention=41202] @late[/usermention] The[…]

I (still) have a dream

Because the child's cattle-like parents "fol[…]