The Unthinkable is now reality. - Page 4 - 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.
#15168472
Politics_Observer wrote:@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.




The Russia and Ukraine of 2021 are quite different entities from the Russia and Ukraine of 1991.

Where I have difficulty with what you believe Ukraine should have done in 1991 is that it is based, if I am reading you right, on a projection of the Ukraine of today unto the Ukraine of 1991. Nor does it take into consideration the kind of transition the Republics of the USSR wanted.

But what I think is problematic is the assertion that Ukraine gave up her nukes. If the nukes were truly Ukraine's then it was a mistake to give them up. But were the nukes Ukraine's?

The nukes were based around the Soviet Union, on the territories of various Soviet Socialist Republics, of which Ukraine was one. But the nukes belonged to the "Federal" Soviet goverment. Same as nukes based at Minot Air Force Base, N Dakota belong to the Federal Government of the United States, and not to the State of N Dakota.

The command and control of nukes based in Ukraine was never under the control of local Ukrainians. They were under the control of Moscow. It is fair to assume controlled by Russians, as Russians dominated.

Now if we have to speculate:

Would the nuclear weapons not have become a sticking point in the move towards independence from Moscow? You have to also assume that a push by Kiev to retain hundreds of nukes would also have raised the suspicions of Russians. One also has to speculate that the more Ukraine pushed for a share of the nukes, the higher would have risen Russian suspicions. Dont forget that even then there was still uproar over Crimea and Sevastopol naval base among other things. In the end they both worked something out which at the time satisfied both.

Would it have been better if the collapse of the Soviet Union went the way of Yugoslavia?
#15168473
@Juin

It's a very real possibility that the Soviet Union could have went the same way as Yugoslavia but with far more deadlier consequences. Based on what I have read at the time, Ukraine could have gotten command and control of those nukes if they wanted. They were also used as bargaining chips with the Russians and the US at the time.

However, they didn't seem to fully grasp the deterrent value of those nukes based on what I was reading which is honestly shocking to me. The Russians certainly did and so did the US. I read there was a Ukrainian general opposed to surrendering those nukes but nobody listened to him at the time. So at least the Ukrainians had one general recommending not to surrender those nukes and was actually a general looking out for the best interests of his own country.

Aside from all that, it seems there is a good possibility (though nobody except Putin knows for sure) that Russia could invade Ukraine. I am assuming Ukrainian armed forces are prepared as best they can in case Russia does invade again. However, I would think the Russians would choose speed and surprise without telegraphing any military movements if they decided to invade. That's how I would do it if I were a general ordered to carry out an invasion of another country.

Do it with speed, deception and surprise. You don't want your military opponent to be ready or expecting your attack or see it coming. This Russian approach, you know, I mean everybody can see their troop movements which gives the Ukrainians plenty of time to prepare and be ready if they were to actually go forward with an invasion. Which will cost the Russians more lives given that they telegraphed their moves.
#15168478
Politics_Observer wrote:@Juin

It's a very real possibility that the Soviet Union could have went the same way as Yugoslavia but with far more deadlier consequences. Based on what I have read at the time, Ukraine could have gotten command and control of those nukes if they wanted. They were also used as bargaining chips with the Russians and the US at the time.

However, they didn't seem to fully grasp the deterrent value of those nukes based on what I was reading which is honestly shocking to me. The Russians certainly did and so did the US. I read there was a Ukrainian general opposed to surrendering those nukes but nobody listened to him at the time. So at least the Ukrainians had one general recommending not to surrender those nukes and was actually a general looking out for the best interests of his own country.





Yea, but who would have controlled the nukes in 1991 Ukraine? Dont forget that Ukraine of 1991 was made of ethnic Ukrainians and ethnic Russians. What would have been the reaction of ethnic Russians of Ukraine at rumours that Ukraine wanted to retain nukes so that she could target Russia! Would that have been a good recipe for a smooth and peaceful transition to independence?

I think there is a lot of Ukrainian nationalists who fail to appreciate that Ukraine has a substantial ethnic Russian population. It is not taken into account that that minority, conscious of the presence of Russia next door, would react negatively and with hostility to the proposition that the first act of the newly independent Ukraine they voted for is to target Russia with nukes.

I am not sure what the General is talking about. Did Soviet soldiers immediately abandon arsenals of the Soviet Union? Was this General gonna set up reliable units, staffed by pure ethnic Ukrainian nationalists to assault the arsenals to seize the nukes? And what of the ethnic Russians who were also part of the newly independent Ukrainian Army and Government?

And what about international pressures? Was western Europe and the US gonna accept a nuclear armed Ukraine? The consensus of the west was a preference of Russia as inheritor state of the Soviet Union; meaning custodian of its nukes. The west preferred the nukes under one government, not under a bunch of new states of questionable stability.

I think in addressing whether Ukraine should have retained the nukes stationed on its soil to consider both best and worst case scenarios. At best Russia may not have paid any attention, and Ukraine would have just walked away with them. It is also quite possible that if it had become a divisive issue at the time then the problems of 2014 may well have been precipitated in 1991

Politics_Observer wrote:
Aside from all that, it seems there is a good possibility (though nobody except Putin knows for sure) that Russia could invade Ukraine. I am assuming Ukrainian armed forces are prepared as best they can in case Russia does invade again. However, I would think the Russians would choose speed and surprise without telegraphing any military movements if they decided to invade. That's how I would do it if I were a general ordered to carry out an invasion of another country.

Do it with speed, deception and surprise. You don't want your military opponent to be ready or expecting your attack or see it coming. This Russian approach, you know, I mean everybody can see their troop movements which gives the Ukrainians plenty of time to prepare and be ready if they were to actually go forward with an invasion. Which will cost the Russians more lives given that they telegraphed their moves.



It is hard to tell. Because beyond a certain point both governments lose the ability to control events.

At this point the ethnic Russian separatists are fully aware that Putin has amassed a huge Force on the approaches to Ukraine. That by itself is enough to kick the adrenaline. An eagerness to hit at Ukrainians on the other side. They also hit back. It is funny how even a single sniper may, even if unintentionally, start a chain of events that drag larger and larger units into the fray.

But at this point it doesnt seem to me like Putin needs to attack Ukraine. Ukraine is sufficiently panicked. If Putin only wants concessions, even if painful ones from Ukraine, he is likely to get them.

But Putin is also a strange fellow. I will say overly cautious. It seems to me like he halted his blitz of 2014 far too early. I am not saying he should have laid seige to Russian dominated cities like Kharkiv. That would have bogged him down in costly fighting. But he could have at least moved his formations to the vincinity of Kharkiv, Mariopol etc to have them within range of Russian guns.

And for the life of me I cannot figure why when Putin took Crimea he did not push his assault north of Crimea where the waters are at. It does not look like there was anything to stop him. Crimea got its waters from land still held by Ukrainians, who have blocked water from heading to Crimea. Ukraine may have to open the water spigots for the Putin to pull back his Armies
#15168480
@Juin

I'll be honest with you, if I was one of those soldiers on the Ukrainian or Russian front line, you wouldn't see me getting excited at all. I would be hoping that cooler heads prevail and nothing comes of this and the politicians eventually order the troops to stand down so they can go back to their families. A lot of the Russian soldiers I have seen on TV seem like young kids who have much to learn about life and still have their whole lives ahead of them. It would be a tragedy to see such young kids ordered into a mess. They are too young to be dying and should be experiencing the better things in life at that age such as dating a beautiful woman or something (I say young kids but they are young men who seem like kids to me who still have much to learn). Such young lives that could be so easily thrown away by powerful older men. This isn't something to get excited about at all. Some people do though because they don't understand or are ignorant to the reality of the situation. Young people like that have no business being in such a mess in my view and should be back home with family and friends or going to school. Being happy people. That's what I think.
#15168491
Politics_Observer wrote:@Juin

I'll be honest with you, if I was one of those soldiers on the Ukrainian or Russian front line, you wouldn't see me getting excited at all. I would be hoping that cooler heads prevail and nothing comes of this and the politicians eventually order the troops to stand down so they can go back to their families. A lot of the Russian soldiers I have seen on TV seem like young kids who have much to learn about life and still have their whole lives ahead of them. It would be a tragedy to see such young kids ordered into a mess. They are too young to be dying and should be experiencing the better things in life at that age such as dating a beautiful woman or something (I say young kids but they are young men who seem like kids to me who still have much to learn). Such young lives that could be so easily thrown away by powerful older men. This isn't something to get excited about at all. Some people do though because they don't understand or are ignorant to the reality of the situation. Young people like that have no business being in such a mess in my view and should be back home with family and friends or going to school. Being happy people. That's what I think.




Amen. Cannot be better said. Wars are such a waste!
#15168532
@Juin

We don't give a shit what Russia or people in Russia think about us joining NATO to protect ourselves against Russia. Nor is it possible for Russia to demand anything in this regard. It is a pretty stupid position to threaten people not to join NATO because it will just make them join NATO more. It is our country and we decide what to do for ourselves.

@B0ycey Right, and i am correct in most cases. Maduro, Belarus and now this topic i started BEFORE actual turmoil or revolts happened and even before there were any real signs. Moralez topic wasn't mine. So it is funny how you claim it to be 0/4, I am pretty spot on in the topics I start it seems.
#15168553
Politics_Observer wrote:I am not so sure I would want Russia leading the world. I would prefer the Chinese personally. They seem smarter than the Russians.


I'd rather have Russia. Mainly because they have a less organized economy. It becomes easier to conduct economic warfare.
#15168625
JohnRawls wrote:@Juin

We don't give a shit what Russia or people in Russia think about us joining NATO to protect ourselves against Russia. Nor is it possible for Russia to demand anything in this regard. It is a pretty stupid position to threaten people not to join NATO because it will just make them join NATO more. It is our country and we decide what to do for ourselves.




JohnRawls,

It is the right of any nation to set up military alliances, or chose to join existing military alliances. And of course that applies to Ukraine as well. But those are not risk free decisions. Military alliances have always been set up to address some threats. And as equally, the setting up of military alliances has to naturally pose a threat to some entity, else why the setting up of an alliance in the first place?

I believe what appears to be the issue is that it is asked that a decision by Ukraine to join Nato be risk free. Well, the risk is there, and not because I wish it.

You say it is not possible for Russia to demand anything in that regard. That is, as a matter of fact, wishful thinking. What do you call the huge force Putin just deployed off Ukraine?

And it is possible to intimidate people from joining Nato. Ukraine and Georgia are definitely never gonna be part of Nato. And it is not because Nato is unsympathetic to their joining. The hurdle that prevents acession of Ukraine or Georgia boils down to Nato's understandable reluctance to accept members with existing disputes with neighbours. It is one thing Nato crushing Serbia. It is quite another thing Nato crushing Russia
#15168627
@Juin

Well Russia's invasion of the Ukraine demonstrates that NOT joining a military alliance and/or giving up your nuclear weapons arsenal isn't risk free either.
#15168644
Juin wrote:JohnRawls,

It is the right of any nation to set up military alliances, or chose to join existing military alliances. And of course that applies to Ukraine as well. But those are not risk free decisions. Military alliances have always been set up to address some threats. And as equally, the setting up of military alliances has to naturally pose a threat to some entity, else why the setting up of an alliance in the first place?

I believe what appears to be the issue is that it is asked that a decision by Ukraine to join Nato be risk free. Well, the risk is there, and not because I wish it.

You say it is not possible for Russia to demand anything in that regard. That is, as a matter of fact, wishful thinking. What do you call the huge force Putin just deployed off Ukraine?

And it is possible to intimidate people from joining Nato. Ukraine and Georgia are definitely never gonna be part of Nato. And it is not because Nato is unsympathetic to their joining. The hurdle that prevents acession of Ukraine or Georgia boils down to Nato's understandable reluctance to accept members with existing disputes with neighbours. It is one thing Nato crushing Serbia. It is quite another thing Nato crushing Russia


Sure Russia can do that and that is a reason why countries around Russia will try to join NATO as fast as possible before Russia does this to them. Countries that joined NATO fast basically are trouble free now. It was a wise choice.

Also although Russia can antagonize Georgia and Ukraine but this also means that long term, this will make Ukraine and Georgia hate Russia and they will not just temporarily be anti-Russian but will be that for a very very long time.

What you talking about makes sense in a very short term but it is not a viable strategy.
#15168648
JohnRawls wrote:Sure Russia can do that and that is a reason why countries around Russia will try to join NATO as fast as possible before Russia does this to them. Countries that joined NATO fast basically are trouble free now. It was a wise choice.

Also although Russia can antagonize Georgia and Ukraine but this also means that long term, this will make Ukraine and Georgia hate Russia and they will not just temporarily be anti-Russian but will be that for a very very long time.

What you talking about makes sense in a very short term but it is not a viable strategy.




Of course, there are consequences for Russia. Actually there are consequences for everyone. It was to be expected anyways. I do not fault Nato for having expanded hundreds of miles eastwards while its decades old nemesis Russia was comatose. It would have been professional malpractive if Nato had not taken advantage of its rival's comatose state. But it had to be understood that at some point the then comatose Russia was bound to bestir itself and react with hostility at the poaching going on its vincinity. That was bound to happen whoever was in the Kremlin.

I have to beg to differ that it is only Russia antagonising others. Ethnic Ukrainians who dominate Ukraine also antagonised ethnic Russians of Ukraine in their choice to lean towards Nato/Eu as opposed to Russia. I am not sure what the deal was in Georgia, but it seemed like the 'vilis antagonised Ossetians.

Russian actions may, as you point out, stir anti Russian sentiments in Ukraine and Georgia. As equally ethnic Ukrainian anti Russian sentiments may also stir up anti Ukrainian sentiments among its ethnic Russians.
#15168650
Juin wrote:I have to beg to differ that it is only Russia antagonising others. Ethnic Ukrainians who dominate Ukraine also antagonised ethnic Russians of Ukraine in their choice to lean towards Nato/Eu as opposed to Russia. I am not sure what the deal was in Georgia, but it seemed like the 'vilis antagonised Ossetians.


This is utter nonsense. EU trade and movement would be as beneficial to Ukrainian Russians as much as it would be for all Ukrainians.
#15168654
noemon wrote:This is utter nonsense. EU trade and movement would be as beneficial to Ukrainian Russians as much as it would be for all Ukrainians.




That is ethnic Russian Ukrainians call to make. Dont they get to decide what they want? Isnt that what ethnic Ukrainians have been doing? Ethnic Ukrainians want Nato/Eu, ethnic Russian Ukrainians want Russia. +
#15168709
JohnRawls wrote:@B0ycey Right, and i am correct in most cases. Maduro, Belarus and now this topic i started BEFORE actual turmoil or revolts happened and even before there were any real signs. Moralez topic wasn't mine. So it is funny how you claim it to be 0/4, I am pretty spot on in the topics I start it seems.


Well it's 0/3 then given you start a thread when a hint of protest makes the headlines and claim there is going to be a fall of power. Western Media haven't grasped yet that a movement isn't a consensus. If Skinster was still around she would twitter the anti-protest protests that are occurring that you don't read about I suspect. But even so I noticed the West filmed the Navalny protests the other day but were more conservative with numbers and influence that these protests had this time. Think they got stung last time when they pushed a narrative that didn't exist. Or perhaps they just saw what I saw which was as the protests made their way down the street with their banners and what not for Navalnys release, ordinary Russians just walked and drove past them continuing their ordinary life. So much for the great Unthinkable you claim is going to happen. The numbers simply aren't there and people are watching but still ignoring the movement in any case.

As for Navalny, he has been advised to give up his hunger strike. If he doesn't he will die. So he would in essence martyr himself if he continues with it. So we will soon see two things. Navalnys desire in this cause and the power of this cause. If he chooses to die then he has desire and then we will see what influence this movement really has given he has died and that is what the protests are against. And if he doesn't he won't have much desire in the cause and as such the 'people' won't have a reason to rally up next time.

So from what you write you would expect something of a revolution soon? I see more that the only reaction we will see is International condemnation and a few more diplomatic sanctions. Sure we might get a thousand Russians walk into Red Square but they won't do anything and will be tomorrows chip wrap in any case. I just don't see Putin losing power nor anyones desire to topple him given Russians are very patriotic to mother Russia and most see their plight down to the West in any case.
#15168711
Juin wrote:That is ethnic Russian Ukrainians call to make. Dont they get to decide what they want? Isnt that what ethnic Ukrainians have been doing? Ethnic Ukrainians want Nato/Eu, ethnic Russian Ukrainians want Russia. +


Isn't it the Russian opposition's call to become a democracy and join the EU? Where is the Russian opposition? Currently in prison. Isn't it also the call of the Belarus opposition who is now in self-imposed exile?

Don't these Russian people get to decide what they want? ;)

Are you claiming that every single minority in a country gets to decide what it wants and if that goes against the majority, then a separatist war is justified?

It is quite rich for the apologists of Russia to be invoking the "democratic will of the Russian minority" in the Ukraine without even being able to properly determine their true democratic will anyway; while at the same time in Russia all opposition is in prison, while in Belarus in self-imposed exile. :roll:

I think this is a good resource to make available […]

start the thread about Erdogan so we dont need to[…]

Well, if all *the smart people* are doing it, and[…]

A question for our Marxists

I stated social democracy (nordic countries etc) […]