Could the Ukraine situation start a US-Russia war?

[russ_watters]

How about we just invite Russia to join NATO?

Is that a joke? It's not funny.

 

[bob012345]

I would think bringing Ukraine into NATO would be the trigger that causes Putin to decide to use nukes.

Putin is not suicidal. I doubt very much he would end Russia over Ukraine.

 

[Office_Shredder]

From initial conception to final product most likely took way more than the actual construction phase.
These ports for LNG are not simple off the shelf from the hardware store.

This is not right. The second one they started construction on two years after discovering natural gas there, and it was one of the first LNG refineries in the world.

For Germany itself, does it have available port space, and pipeline access.
If not who is going to be squeezed out and take it on the chin for King and country.
Bureaucratic slowness, I agree, but all dominos have to remain upright and that is their job.

It's only necessary bureaucracy if you care about making sure all the dominos stay up. If Russia today said haha we're cutting it all off good luck next winter, and Germany thought they were literally going to have millions of deaths, then yes, hard decisions have to be made, but deciding it's too hard to change anything in the next six months is a decision in itself.

 

[bob012345]

Is that a joke? It's not funny.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2...-wanted-to-join-alliance-early-on-in-his-rule

 

[artis]

I really do feel the WW3 rhetoric is just going in circles with no end.
I myself believe that the conflict should be and can be contained within Ukraine by making the right decisions and doing so fast as we are already late on everything.
It wasn't obvious from the beginning but it is obvious now that Russian conscripts are really not in a mood to fight over Ukraine and that is an advantage we can and should use.
Just provide Ukraine weapons , I don't even think NATO involvement is needed. Ukrainians learn fast give them good weapons and as things are currently it seems they would be able to push Russia out.

Why we have to bring MAD and nukes and all that mayhem into this all the time?
If this stays in Ukraine I don't see any nukes, apart from Putin enjoying his daily threats of course.

One thing is true, nuclear weapons do change the force balance. Just look at North Korea, given their rhetoric the US would have made a regime change there 10 times over by now and yet they haven't and I think it's not because Kim is so untouchable or hard to find, I think it's because they have the A bomb and an ICBM to deliver it. Their close proximity to China might also be a factor.

 

[vela]

What makes you think that? I feel like people who believe odds are good that Putin might use nukes believe he's either crazy or stupid, prone to rash decisions, and a liar where it matters. He's told us the criteria:
https://www.newsweek.com/russia-ukraine-peskov-putin-nuclear-weapons-biden-1692753

If that wasn't the criteria, why wouldn't he tell us? Deterrence only works if you tell your enemy the circumstances under which you would use the nukes.

I've seen nothing to suggest that he isn't the cold, cunning, calculating KGB agent he appears to be.

It could very well be true that right now, no one in Russia is seriously contemplating using nuclear weapons, but you're not talking about now. You're talking about the future, and Russia may evaluate things differently if they're not only pushed out of Ukraine but left in an even worse position of having the country join NATO.

I think Putin sees Ukraine joining NATO as an existential threat to Russia. It would make them vulnerable geographically and economically. He wasn't demanding Ukraine stay out of NATO before the war just to have an excuse to invade.

 

[Jarvis323]

Is that a joke? It's not funny.

For me it's more like a thought experiment. What would that mean? Is there no obligation for other NATO countries to do anything if one NATO country attacks another? Would there be a trial to determine who started it, and then the aggressor would be kicked out? And once the aggressor is kicked out, would the other NATO countries be obligated to attack the aggressor if they didn't cease afterwards?

Would it give rest to worries that Russians might have over having neighbors in NATO when they aren't?

 

[artis]

I think Putin sees Ukraine joining NATO as an existential threat to Russia. It would make them vulnerable geographically and economically. He wasn't demanding Ukraine stay out of NATO before the war just to have an excuse to invade.

Ukraine won't be accepted into NATO now. Putin knows this.
NATO cannot accept a country just like flipping a switch, there is a long process that makes sure the potential candidate country is safe for NATO and won't spill over their military secrets and is able to host troops etc.
We went through a long process before we joined, had to get stuff ready.
In the shape Ukraine is now I can't see the possibility of membership.
If not for anything else then for the fact that Ukraine has parts of it's territory contested and occupied (Crimea etc)

 

[Jarvis323]

I don't think it would be surprising if Russia used a nuclear weapon on a non-nuclear, non-NATO country, because there is no expectation of returned fire. I doubt they would use one on Ukraine, because it would be indefensible senseless violence that couldn't easily be explained by a propaganda machine, and that would have extreme consequences.

I am on board with Ukraine, and others, immediately joining NATO, without much discussion and all at once. I don't think Russia would respond with nuclear war, and it would be a sensible consequence, one that Russia should have expected and can be understood to have brought on itself. It would be a logical response in accordance with rules and expectations that have been established. And it would help pressure nations to take seriously international rules based agreements in the future.

Otherwise, efforts intended to keep the peace in the future will be weakened, and security will be in serious jeopardy again later as a result.

 

[russ_watters]

For me it's more like a thought experiment. What would that mean? Is there no obligation for other NATO countries to do anything if one NATO country attacks another? Would there be a trial to determine who started it, and then the aggressor would be kicked out? And once the aggressor is kicked out, would the other NATO countries be obligated to attack the aggressor if they didn't cease afterwards?

Would it give rest to worries that Russians might have over having neighbors in NATO when they aren't?

Sorry, that's too bizarre for me to sort out.

 

[artis]

 

[russ_watters]

It could very well be true that right now, no one in Russia is seriously contemplating using nuclear weapons, but you're not talking about now. You're talking about the future, and Russia may evaluate things differently if they're not only pushed out of Ukraine but left in an even worse position of having the country join NATO.

The rules of engagement are pre-thought out for the exact purpose of not having to re-think them when the situation changes. That's what the quote was talking about; future scenarios.

I think Putin sees Ukraine joining NATO as an existential threat to Russia. It would make them vulnerable geographically and economically.

Well, neither of us are in his head so you could be right, but what you describe is not what "existential threat" means, so it requires Putin to be crazy/stupid/impulsive. IMO, he understands what the term means and he understands what NATO is. NATO in Ukraine is two steps short of an existential threat. It's neither an invasion or even a threat of invasion.

He wasn't demanding Ukraine stay out of NATO before the war just to have an excuse to invade.

He also didn't threaten a pre-emptive nuclear strike if he didn't get it.

 

[artis]

Here is a Ukrainian designed and Belorussian made ATGM being put to use, like the one from my previous post shooting down the low hoovering Russia helicopter.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skif_(ATGM)



"Buratino" the nickname is said to be given to a Russian TOS-1 thermobaric weapon system.
Also the character in Russian literature based on the Pinocchio character
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buratino

 

[artis]

One can check out live map of UA where people constantly update certain events of war.
https://liveuamap.com/

 

[artis]

My neighbors Estonians have given Ukraine sizeable military aid
https://estonianworld.com/security/blog-russia-ukraine-crisis-a-view-from-estonia/

The military, medical and technical aid to Ukraine that is being arranged in cooperation of Estonia’s Centre for Defence Investment and the Estonian Defence Forces has diversified in the last weeks. By today, Estonia has sent to Ukraine eighty different types of military equipment – ammo, defence equipment and modern military technology, in the amount of over €220 million.

My country have also sent around 200 million Eur worth of military equipment.
The not so good part is that those 200 million are a sizeable portion of our total military budget.Now there is a different problem mounting, Ukraine is a sinkhole of military equipment and Europe, especially eastern part is draining of that equipment, volunteers are buying all they can and sending to Ukraine so much so hunting stores are sold out.
The way I see it NATO but more so EU needs to not just give to Ukraine but also step up giving to existing members that border with Russia.
We cannot compromise our own security while helping Ukraine.

The situation is not made better by the fact the EU doesn't import Russian steel anymore, this is clogging up the supply chain and steel prices are sky high now, scrap prices are also up. Our local military manufacturers are taking a hit in terms of delays and prices due to this.
I wonder whether Sweden can ramp up it's metal export

 

[artis]

A video from the Russian side, apparently this is in Mariupol ,

 

[PeroK]

You argued that it was time for us to fight. I presume you mean a limited war between NATO and Russia. I don't believe that it is possible to guarantee that a war will remain limited. Where end-of-the-world is in question, estimates of likelihood are not sufficient. All out war or no war at all are our choices. That's my logic.

Of course, I prefer no war at all. I also believe that Biden and all the leaders of NATO countries have the same position as I do. No escalation that might trigger WWIII.

Okay, by that logic the best way to avoid WWIII is to form an alliance with Russia. Stop supplying arms to Ukraine and have a NATO-Russia pact.

 

[artis]

This is really interesting, the very man himself Igor Girkin aka "Strelkov" is sh!t talking the Russian army. The very former KGB agent now turned guerilla warfare commander fighting in Donbas since 2014.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Igor_Girkin
But hear him out, I think his assessment is very accurate, both on how little progress was made, how it compares to the Soviet-Finnish war in 1940 and how spring and leaves will change situation.
An assessment so accurate it wouldn't fly in Moscow state TV.

 

[PeroK]

I think Putin sees Ukraine joining NATO as an existential threat to Russia. It would make them vulnerable geographically and economically. He wasn't demanding Ukraine stay out of NATO before the war just to have an excuse to invade.

Someone who disgrees with you is Mikhail Khodorkovsky, who proposed to run against Putin for president in 2003 and served 10 years in jail as a result. He believes that force is the only thing Putin understands or responds to and that appeasement just encourages him. Now, I'm not saying that Khodorkovsky is correct - I simply do not know - but it does mean that your proposed policy of appeasement could be the one that leads to WWIII.

Not least because Poland will be next and they are in NATO. At that point you and @anorlunda will have to decide whether to throw Poland out of NATO or risk WWIII. If you don't want to risk WWIII over Ukraine, why would you risk it over Poland?

I understand that you and @anorlunda are convinced that any attempt to oppose Putin militarily will lead to WWIII. But, you may in fact be dead wrong. By not standing up to Putin you may be encouraging him that all of Europe could be his. And that will lead to WWIII.

There's an interview with Khodorkovsky here.

https://edition.cnn.com/videos/world/2022/04/03/putin-insane-ex-russian-oligarch-ukraine-gps-vpx.cnn

 

[artis]

For those that are interested I suggest see this twitter feed and scroll down past the videos, where the man explains in writing about the Soviet army and their tactics and how this "Z operation" might have been planned after similar ones done by the USSR in the past , like in 1968 Prague, only worse off and less prepared etc.
Some really good points and possible reasons for why this is failing.
If eventually such claims turn out to be correct, the relentless talking about WW3 and which inaction will lead to which country being nuked might all be useless fear mongering as it might just end as a simple Russian defeat in Ukraine.

 

[DennisN]

An interesting interview with Fiona Hill on recent events. Among other things she argues that one of Putin's ambitions seems to be to establish a hold on what is called Novorossiya (New Russia), which is the south of Ukraine. Furthermore, please note there is an inaccurate map in the video which is said to show which countries have sanctioned Russia.

Fiona Hill on alleged Russian atrocities in Ukraine and Putin’s future (Face The Nation, Apr 3, 2022)

Fiona Hill, the former senior director for European and Russian affairs on the National Security Council during the Trump administration, discusses Russia's actions in Ukraine and how Vladimir Putin could tighten his grip on power.

Another thing which I think haven't been mentioned in this thread before:

Russia threatens Wikipedia with 4 million ruble fine for coverage of war in Ukraine (WikiNews, April 2, 2022)

On Thursday, the Russian government's communication agency, Roskomnadzor, threatened to levy a 4 million rubles fine (US$47 thousand) against Wikipedia if it does not remove information about the war in Ukraine from its article 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine.

Roskomnadzor referred to the content as "unreliable socially significant materials, as well as other prohibited information" and accused Wikipedia of deliberately misleading the Russian people, but it did not say which specific details it wanted removed.

Guidelines issued by the government of Russia last month prohibit, for example, referring to the conflict as a war. Many independent Russian news agencies and journalists either shut down or left the country.

[...]

A spokesperson for the Wikimedia Foundation told the press the Russian government had asked for changes twice, on March 1 and March 29. The spokesperson went on to say "The Wikimedia Foundation supports everyone's fundamental right to access free, open, and verifiable information; this escalation does not change our commitment."

[...]

 

[anorlunda]

I understand that many here think that limited war probably won't lead to WW3. But we must ask ourselves about the consequences of the improbable case. If end of the world is one of the possible outcomes, even a small chance is unacceptable.

Another point. The WW3 risk applies only when both combatants are nuclear superpowers, or members of NATO. If we had Sweden provide coastal defenses for Ukraine and Switzerland provide a no-fly zone, the implicit risk of resort to nuclear weapons would not be present.

 

[fresh_42]

If we had Sweden provide coastal defenses for Ukraine and Switzerland provide a no-fly zone, the implicit risk of resort to nuclear weapons would not be present.

You did not count for the moron factor. I do not think that Putin can actually be trusted in this respect.

The lesson learned from the only application of nukes in a war we know of reads: "One or two strikes win the game." I am sure it would if a nuclear weapon hit Stockholm or Zurich.

 

[Frabjous]

I understand that many here think that limited war probably won't lead to WW3. But we must ask ourselves about the consequences of the improbable case. If end of the world is one of the possible outcomes, even a small chance is unacceptable.

By that logic, with only the West responsible for preventing nuclear war, the Russians will win every confrontation.

 

[PeroK]

If end of the world is one of the possible outcomes, even a small chance is unacceptable.

And there's a good chance of a pre-emptive nuclear strike by Russia in any case. Your aspiration for a safe world is an illusion. Every day I wonder whether Putin will nuke London today.

We are not in a secure world. Not by a long way.

 

[anorlunda]

By that logic, with only the West responsible for preventing nuclear war, the Russians will win every confrontation.

The technical word relevant to our debate is deterrence. It is the foundational principle of military defense in almost all countries. It is not one-sided. It works both ways.

The Russians were deterred from intervening in Iraq. In Syria, direct NATO-Russian combat came close, but it was avoided.

Indeed, Vietnam and Korea were cases where Russia provided aid, weapons, and training, but no direct combat. That is similar to what we have done so far in Ukraine. They were deterred. We are deterred in the case of Ukraine.

We may hate it, but MAD is the reality that we live under.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mutual_assured_destruction
Mutual assured destruction (MAD) is a doctrine of military strategy and national security policy in which a full-scale use of nuclear weapons by two or more opposing sides would cause the complete annihilation of both the attacker and the defender (see pre-emptive nuclear strike and second strike).[1] It is based on the theory of deterrence, which holds that the threat of using strong weapons against the enemy prevents the enemy's use of those same weapons. The strategy is a form of Nash equilibrium in which, once armed, neither side has any incentive to initiate a conflict or to disarm.

 

[PeroK]

The technical word relevant to our debate is deterrence. It is the foundational principle of military defense in almost all countries. It is not one-sided. It works both ways.

The Russians were deterred from intervening in Iraq. In Syria, direct NATO-Russian combat came close, but it was avoided.

Indeed, Vietnam and Korea were cases where Russia provided aid, weapons, and training, but no direct combat. That is similar to what we have done so far in Ukraine. They were deterred. We are deterred in the case of Ukraine.

We may hate it, but MAD is the reality that we live under.

We all understand that. The question is what do we do about Ukraine. We are already angering Putin by sanctions and supplying Ukraine militarily. As I said above, if we take your argument to its logical conclusion we should perhaps become neutral (like India) and leave Ukraine at Russia's mercy.

There must, by your argument, be a greater risk of nuclear war by what we are already doing, than by abandoning Ukraine altogether.

And, you've still not given any clear indication of what if anything you are not willing to sacrifice to avoid military confrontation with Russia.

Where is your line in the sand?

 

[pinball1970]

We all understand that. The question is what do we do about Ukraine. We are already angering Putin by sanctions and supplying Ukraine militarily. As I said above, if we take your argument to its logical conclusion we should perhaps become neutral (like India) and leave the Ukraine at Russia's mercy.

There must, by your argument, be a greater risk of nuclear war by what we are already doing, than by abandoning Ukraine altogether.

And, you've still not given any clear indication of what if anything you are not willing to sacrifice to avoid military confrontation with Russia.

Where is your line in the sand?

I agree with you BUT we are not at that point yet.
He has invaded a non-NATO country, committed atrocities and the west is providing money arms and passage for refuges of that country.
The line in the sand is where he strays from this into A NATO country.
This means we watch him butcher a country lie about it and gets away with it while we watch.
That is the price to avoid WW3 (at the moment)

 

[wrobel]

He has invaded a non-NATO country,

Such an argument implies that a NATO-country must also be leaved without a help. The nukes factor exists in both cases independently on whether it is NATO or not. I feel that this story will bury NATO as well.

 

[russ_watters]

The technical word relevant to our debate is deterrence. It is the foundational principle of military defense in almost all countries. It is not one-sided. It works both ways.

That's not what you have been describing though. You're putting 100% of the responsibility for avoiding nuclear war by being passive on the US/west as if we don't also have nuclear weapons and a strong conventional military. And in a way you're right: we've told Putin in plain language that we will not respond militarily as long as he doesn't attack NATO, removing our deterrence power from the situation. That's why Putin felt comfortable invading.

A change in stance to active military response would put our deterrence back on the table.

...except that you don't believe that any non-zero risk is acceptable, which means that you don't really believe in deterrence, doesn't it? Deterrence requires a credible risk/threat.

But we must ask ourselves about the consequences of the improbable case. If end of the world is one of the possible outcomes, even a small chance is unacceptable.

The problem here is that we neither set the odds nor control the game. We can decline to buy a lottery ticket and still lose.

Another point. The WW3 risk applies only when both combatants are nuclear superpowers, or members of NATO. If we had Sweden provide coastal defenses for Ukraine and Switzerland provide a no-fly zone, the implicit risk of resort to nuclear weapons would not be present.

That I agree with at least a little. The question still is, who would Russia use nukes against and why/under what circumstances. If he'd only use them against the US then only the US needs to stay out. If he'd only use them against another nuclear power, then only those powers need to stay out. If he'd use them against anyone who would dare join the fight, then the only way to avoid nuclear war is let him do what he wants.

In order to assess the risk, it takes more than vaguely saying "its possible".