Is that a joke? It's not funny.Jarvis323 said:How about we just invite Russia to join NATO?
Putin is not suicidal. I doubt very much he would end Russia over Ukraine.vela said:I would think bringing Ukraine into NATO would be the trigger that causes Putin to decide to use nukes.
256bits said: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.
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.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2...-wanted-to-join-alliance-early-on-in-his-ruleruss_watters said:Is that a joke? It's not funny.
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.russ_watters said: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.
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?russ_watters said:Is that a joke? It's not funny.
Ukraine won't be accepted into NATO now. Putin knows this.vela said: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.
Sorry, that's too bizarre for me to sort out.Jarvis323 said: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?
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.vela said: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.
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.vela said:I think Putin sees Ukraine joining NATO as an existential threat to Russia. It would make them vulnerable geographically and economically.
He also didn't threaten a pre-emptive nuclear strike if he didn't get it.He wasn't demanding Ukraine stay out of NATO before the war just to have an excuse to invade.
My country have also sent around 200 million Eur worth of military equipment.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.
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.anorlunda said: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.
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.vela said: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.
WikiNews said: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."
[...]
You did not count for the moron factor. I do not think that Putin can actually be trusted in this respect.anorlunda said: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.
By that logic, with only the West responsible for preventing nuclear war, the Russians will win every confrontation.anorlunda said: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.
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.anorlunda said:If end of the world is one of the possible outcomes, even a small chance is unacceptable.
caz said:By that logic, with only the West responsible for preventing nuclear war, the Russians will win every confrontation.
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.
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.anorlunda said: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.
I agree with you BUT we are not at that point yet.PeroK said: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?
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.pinball1970 said:He has invaded a non-NATO country,
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.anorlunda said: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 problem here is that we neither set the odds nor control the game. We can decline to buy a lottery ticket and still lose.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.
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.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.