Kiev has to become a 2nd Grozny - 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.
#15167268
@Sandzak

Nobody should want Kiev to become another Grozny. What I mean by that, is Kiev's whole goal is, yes, deter the Russians but use deterrence to PREVENT war to begin with. Nobody wins when the shooting starts and yes Chechens put up a good fight against the Russians in Grozny but the whole city was destroyed and many people were killed on both sides. That's not a favorable outcome for anybody. The Chechens have a city in rubbles and both sides have a bunch of dead to bury. How is this a "win" for anybody?

If the Ukrainians want to deter the Russians AND prevent war, the Ukrainians have to convince the Russians that invading Ukraine carries an unacceptable long term cost. That is only possible with the international assistance and having strong allies on your side. Kiev can't deter Russia on it's own. That doesn't mean US troops fight the Russians nor does it mean that Ukraine joins NATO. However, with plenty of military assistance going to Ukraine and the threat that a Russian invasion could turn into a costly and protracted conflict and thus possible threaten Putin's hold on power, I think, would give Ukraine the best chance to deter Russia and prevent a Russian invasion in the first place.
#15167269
@Sandzak

It's kinda like World War II, the Soviets failed to deter the Nazis and lost 20 million people and suffered untold destruction. You talk to many former Soviet citizens and they say "we won World War II" and they cite their massive casualty figures and how many Nazis died on the Eastern Front. But that's not how I would measure "victory" in World War II. I measure victory in World War II by "who was the most powerful country after World War II?" The answer to that question is the United States. The United States emerged economically far more powerful than the Soviet Union and sufferred much less in losses. So, if one were to measure victory this way, it's safe to say the Soviets along with the Nazis were the real losers in World War II. But in reality, nobody wins an actual shooting war. Everybody loses in the end including the United States because of the casualties involved. Deterrence and prevention of war go hand in hand and when war is prevented, everybody wins for the most part.
#15167275
@Sandzak

I don't blame them, I would want nukes too if I were the Ukrainians. The Ukrainians gave up nuclear weapons shortly after the fall of the Soviet Union. I view that as a mistake for the Ukrainians. Had they not given up those nuclear weapons, the Russians might not ever invaded in the first place. But others would argue, that if Ukraine refused to give up nuclear weapons shortly after the Soviet Union fell, the Russians might have invaded to get control of those nukes.

That could have been a risky proposition though if the Russians tried to invade Ukraine to get those nukes because then the Ukrainians would have fired them at the Russians. Ukraine was given assurances that in return for giving up those nukes, they would not be invaded. Of course, Russia violated those assurances.

You can't ever count on any country to keep their word in the long term, hence, why I think the Ukrainians made a mistake in surrendering nuclear weapons shortly after the fall of the Soviet Union. However, I do think the Ukrainians are crafty and smart enough to build their own nuclear weapons undetected. That's what I would do if I were the Ukrainians. I think they got the technical expertise to build nuclear weapons and if I were them, to assure their own security without the need to go begging for international help, I would build them. I think the Ukrainians could do it. They got smart people over there I am sure.
#15167276
Lol @ @Politics_Observer. You seem determined to kill off all Ukrainians. Why do you hate them so much? Did a Ukrainian run over your pet dog when you were a kid? Lol.
#15167277
@Sandzak

The unfortunate reality is that peace is kept through deterrence because costs of war is too high for any side to take. If the costs aren't high enough for all sides, then war will happen because one side might calculate that the cost is worth paying to go to war. This is why you have to raise the costs so high for all sides, that nobody will go to war because then the price wouldn't be worth paying for any side. Ukraine having nuclear weapons would most certainly make the costs of invading Ukraine very high for the Russians. The Ukrainians certainly wouldn't have much to lose using them on Russian invading forces because they would get destroyed even if they didn't use them.
#15167281
Politics_Observer wrote:@Sandzak

The unfortunate reality is that peace is kept through deterrence because costs of war is too high for any side to take. If the costs aren't high enough for all sides, then war will happen because one side might calculate that the cost is worth paying to go to war. This is why you have to raise the costs so high for all sides, that nobody will go to war because then the price wouldn't be worth paying for any side. Ukraine having nuclear weapons would most certainly make the costs of invading Ukraine very high for the Russians. The Ukrainians certainly wouldn't have much to lose using them on Russian invading forces because they would get destroyed even if they didn't use them.

Before 1914, there were people who claimed that a general European war was "now impossible" because the economic and human costs would be "too high". Guess what happened in August 1914....
#15167329
Sandzak wrote:Ukraine has somehow to deter Russia.
A 2nd Chechenya is the nightmare of Russian Generals. This means all civilians have to be armed (mass mobolisation).





It will seem to me like Kiev becoming Grozny suggests deterrence had failed. Deterrence means Kiev does not get to be Grozny.
#15167392
@Potemkin

Potemkin wrote:Before 1914, there were people who claimed that a general European war was "now impossible" because the economic and human costs would be "too high". Guess what happened in August 1914....


Back in 1914 nobody had nuclear weapons either. Besides, this isn't 1914, this is 2021. You can't treat today's wars like they are yesterday's wars. That's what they did in 1914 was treat World War I as if it were the American Civil War with disastrous consequences with millions of soldiers getting mowed down by machine gun fire when charging the trenches.

They learned the hard way in 1914 that you can't treat World War I like the American Civil War. It wasn't the American Civil War they were fighting again. They probably learned the hard way too that "to win without fighting is the acme of skill" given the massive casualties of World War I AND how World War I didn't solve anything and helped to bring about World War II. That being said, wars from the past do have lessons like it's better not to fight if you really don't have to (which they didn't have to in World War I) and if we don't learn some of those lessons today then we are doomed to repeat them with far far more serious consequences than what World War I had to offer for the world.

Aside from that, nuclear weapons is what kept the Soviet Union and the U.S. from directly fighting each other on a massive scale during the Cold War. If nuclear weapons didn't exist during the Cold War then no doubt the U.S. and the Soviet Union would have fought each other on a massive scale in a conventional conflict that probably would have made World War II and all the casualties of World War II like like a total joke.

Another unresolved problem we see here and Russia is not the only guilty major power here, is how bigger countries do not respect the rights of smaller countries. This was the case before and after World War I. The problem with this, is that such behavior by the bigger and stronger countries and the notion of "might makes right" encourages smaller countries to acquire nuclear weapons to guarantee their rights and security are respected. Might doesn't always make right and the "might makes right" mentality and the "law of the jungle" mentality can lead to disastrous consequences globally because it encourages the proliferation of nuclear weapons and makes the use of those weapons more possible.
Last edited by Politics_Observer on 17 Apr 2021 22:47, edited 1 time in total.
#15167400
Such a situation where Ukraine wants nuclear weapons now and could very well get them covertly in the future highlights why there is a need for a global rules based order that is not about the "law of the jungle" or "might makes right." Ukraine, I am sure is not the only small country that wants nuclear weapons.
#15167540
Politics_Observer wrote:Such a situation where Ukraine wants nuclear weapons now and could very well get them covertly in the future highlights why there is a need for a global rules based order that is not about the "law of the jungle" or "might makes right." Ukraine, I am sure is not the only small country that wants nuclear weapons.




True

This isn't about reality? :eh: Reality is Tai[…]

It is complicated. There is a reason why USSR an[…]

As usual Doug does not understand the science but […]

May 7, Thursday President Lincoln and General […]