Sign up
Darkshaunz
Ukraine is essentially caught in a power play between two major blocs. Russia and the EU. Or, if we will be more honest - Russia and NATO.

The Ukrainian people are going through a hard time economically, and they think that the EU is the panacea to their problems. The reality is that, the EU is not really doing that great - as some member states are essentially on "EU welfare", with strong economies like Germany propping them up from oblivion. As an aside, the German economy is mostly strong because of ridiculous amounts of Chinese importing of their luxury goods. Once that slows down and the EU stops getting the German carry, it's going to be very bad.

Still, when you read into it, it becomes quite clear that the Ukrainians have an even greater quarrel with Russian influence. Which is unfortunate, but it's completely necessary from a Russian policymaker's point of view. The EU is basically part of the NATO missile defense screen and every year, they push to build missile sites closer and closer to Moscow.

What we will see is Western journalism demonizing Russia and lambasting the Ukranian government for instituting harsh martial law. Which is fair enough, but why is there no news coverage of NATO's continued insistence to push more and more missile batteries in EU nations bordering Russia? At any rate, as long as Ukrainian officials are in bed with Putin - it's pretty safe to say that any serious uprising would be quelled quite swiftly by Russian forces. The best precedence we have is the 2008 South Ossetian War between Russia and Georgia.

I do not envy the Ukrainian position, both at the level of the citizenry, or at the level of geopolitical decision making. Either join the EU and become a NATO sympathizer, and face the wrath of Russian scorn - or maintain the status quo at the expense of political popularity and national pride.
Jiminy
Why would NATO care about getting missiles closer to anywhere when they can already hit every major city in the world within about 45 min at any one time due to their ballistic missile submarine presence?
Darkshaunz
Jiminy wrote:
Why would NATO care about getting missiles closer to anywhere when they can already hit every major city in the world within about 45 min at any one time due to their ballistic missile submarine presence?


Why would China bother about getting an aircraft carrier when they already have ballistic weapons that can already hit every major American fleet and airbase in South Korea and Japan?

Oh right, because most military command systems are based on power projection, not rational limitation of firepower.
Jiminy
Hang on. Having a mobile airforce to deliver conventional weapons is something China lacks and in fact something no Asian country currently has. If you want to start pushing your weight around in a region, claim sovereignty over other countries waters etc. You need to be able to back it up with the odd strategic bombing or naval posturing without starting a nuclear war.

NATO already has overwhelming superiority in all aspects of military hardware. If they want to show some force they literally have the choice of how they would like to do it. Move a carrier into the mediterranean off Greece. Have a 20,000 man combined naval and army exercise with Turkey in the black sea. Move 50 B52s next door. Remind them of the Trident II missile and how many you have currently deployed and the time, in minutes, it would take you to flatten their entire country.

Why oh why would you even bother to put some shitty land based nukes closer to them?

I think nothing will come of this, even if they descend into civil war. As with Syria, everyone will watch from the sidelines, be outraged and then three years later some talks will happen about breaking up the school boy fight that's getting boring to watch because their mothers have arrived and are complaining about the blood they're going to have to wash out of their school shirts.

Most likely it will die out after a couple of hundred protesters have gone missing.

Unless a big player has a vested interest in controlling the Ukraine more than Russia, enough to feed weapons to the rebels, nothing will come of this.
Spoon
Darkshaunz wrote:
The Ukrainian people are going through a hard time economically


Surely they can't be doing that bad, Na'vi just won Starladder Season 8 for $62,000 USD after all
Darkshaunz
Jiminy wrote:
Why oh why would you even bother to put some shitty land based nukes closer to them?


If you need to ask why NATO needs to build more missile bases, I think you may have missed the point I have been trying to make. The very nature of the 21st century arms race in our modernized world is a display of total paranoia, insanity, and absurdity. However, it is happening and it is affecting serious geopolitical decisions and foreign policy. If M.A.D is so often cited like you did in your response, then why are countries still spending unprecedented amounts on technologies designed to cause destruction on a smaller scale? Surely, just the threat of major loss of life is enough to keep everyone behaving and playing nice with one another.

That forms the crux of my point, since when did the exercise of power projection need to be rationalized? So it's okay for China, who already has more than enough military power to annex anyone in East Asia - to field an aircraft carrier. That's acceptable, apparently. However, it's hard to accept that NATO is pushing for more missile bases to add to their missile shield in Western Europe. In both cases, these are two powerful entities that are already able to destroy one entire hemisphere of the world still pushing to urinate on the closest tree to establish territorial dominance.

There are some contradictory angles in that track of thinking, wouldn't you say?
Jiminy
Indeed, but you implied that nukes would be the choice of weapon NATO would use in the Ukraine as a deterrent. This is what I disagree with.

MAD is no longer the deterrent it was because there has been enough conflict since MAD without nuclear incident to conclude that there is almost no chance of a super power engaging in a first strike attack any more knowing full well both sides face certain annihilation and the rise of the third power is imminent. Each super power has the weapons albeit some better than others so they are effectively useless as a means of deterrent and yet you're asking why there is a conventional arms race going on?

America only recently have been working on putting conventional weapons in their trident II missiles so they can hit anywhere in the world with a large conventional bomb with 45 min and not start a nuclear war as a response to this growing problem of having their hands tied behind their backs. Russia was very quick to say that they would retaliate nuclear if they detected a US orbital missile launch because they would assume it was nuclear regardless.

Putting nukes anywhere any more is useless because the other side knows you won't use them. You can't use them. Conventional weapons on the other hand...

I don't think it's irrational at all, shaunz
Darkshaunz
Putting nukes anywhere any more is useless because the other side knows you won't use them. You can't use them.


On this particular point, I would definitely be very happy to be wrong...forever.
Hunterbob
This has gotten so out of hand with massive riots and "undercover" government protesters placed to make the violence increase.

The world is so fucked. Chances of international intervention seem very slim too, it else I think it might've happened by now, but I suppose it could catalyse a war after all...
Post Reply