Russia Planning To Disconnect Nuclear Plant From Power Grid, Ukraine Warns (nbcnews.com) 273
Ukraine warned Russia might be planning an imminent attack at the Zaporizhzhia nuclear power plant Friday that it would seek to blame on Kyiv. From a report: Amid mounting fears of a disaster and with both sides alleging the other is planning "provocations," Ukraine's national energy company said that many staff members had been ordered to stay home and that Moscow wants to disconnect the plant from the power grid. The Russian-occupied plant is the largest in Europe, with the two countries trading blame over who is responsible for attacks on the site in recent weeks. Concerns for the safety of the nuclear reactor have sparked growing international alarm and calls for a demilitarized zone around the site, which Russia has rejected. Energoatom, the Ukrainian energy company, said early Friday that Russia is planning to switch off the power blocks at the Zaporizhzhia plant and disconnect them from Ukraine's power grid, which would deny the country a major energy source. It also said that the majority of staff members at the plant had been ordered to stay home, with only those who operate the power units allowed in.
So what exactly does it take? (Score:2, Insightful)
What is necessary for us to finally realize that this ain't just a local conflict between a country we don't like and a country we don't give a fuck about?
Re:So what exactly does it take? (Score:5, Informative)
We already know that, that's why we're pouring materiel into Ukraine as rapidly as possible.
If Russia didn't have nuclear weapons, we would already have swooped in and paved it.
if Russia touchs nato then it may be ww3 (Score:3)
if Russia touchs nato then it may be ww3
Re:if Russia touchs nato then it may be ww3 (Score:5, Interesting)
And if NATO crosses whatever vague line Russia has drawn in the sand, there will also be a Russia-European war. Maybe not WW3, but who knows. Maybe China and India will pick sides and fight each other over something that is thousands of miles away.
Russia would likely do something stupid like roll in with a bunch of armor, something most of Europe can't counter. Germany hasn't been working on anti-tank gear to the degree necessary to defend NATO members. Poland and the Baltic states are particularly vulnerable, with neither the resources to defend themselves or neighbors that can help.
After a Russian invasion of a NATO member, which would not be something that could be stopped. Then over the new few months watch every one of Russia's tanks destroyed, leaving Russia unable to defend itself. That's when they start launching nukes on their neighbors. They may or may not try to open with negotiating a massive DMZ border, which is what Russia actual wants. Sadly the Kremlin is more likely to nuke first then talk sense. They're politically backwards when compared to Westerners, making it difficult for us to anticipate or even understand their motivates.
A big mistake would be for mainland China to forcefully reunite with Taiwan while the US is in a hot war with Russia. There's only one country that can logistically manage a multi-theater war. And the US is not likely to be too diplomatic about it when pressed into two big fights. Hopefully China knows we're not reasonable when under pressure and won't force the issue catastrophically. China is far more likely to negotiate and wait patiently in order to achieve their goals. Politically more pragmatic the Russia politicians (although not as pragmatic and cynically as Russian people), although Beijing can easily fall into the assumption that the ends justifies the means. That leaves open the option that China will start and fight wars, if they think they are likely to come out ahead. As long as every potential conflict is kept in a position as being too costly, you can keep China coming back to the negotiation table.
Re:if Russia touchs nato then it may be ww3 (Score:5, Informative)
Russia would likely do something stupid like roll in with a bunch of armor, something most of Europe can't counter.
Russia couldnt even pull off an invasion of Ukraine, it's conventional forces are not a threat to NATO Europe as a whole, particularly with a major portion of those forces already bogged down in Ukraine.
Re:if Russia touchs nato then it may be ww3 (Score:5, Insightful)
Should Russia actually reach the western border of Ukraine (which admittedly seems unlikely given their poor military performance) there is no reason to believe they wouldn't continue through the Baltics and Poland while nuclear saber-rattling.
A strategy that relies on your enemy being incompetent is not a good one.
Re:if Russia touchs nato then it may be ww3 (Score:4, Insightful)
I'm not sure I understand how it would be the "logical thing" for Russia to disarm its nuclear arsenal in terms of Russian interests. While nuclear weapons have a number of very obvious problems they are an absolutely amazing grantee of sovereignty. Their nuclear arsenal has been providing a huge, glaring reason for NATO to not get involved in this war and is exactly the reason NATO countries have been so cautious in the types of aid they give Ukraine.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Not invading other countries would be in Russia's interest.
Not if they win. At least according to the ideology their government seems to be following.
The ending of sanctions would be in Russia's interest.
Sanctions are not a long term problem for Russia as it's only Western countries participating in them. They have enough money and allies to find work arounds for most of them given enough time and they will always have a market for their oil unless the global political climate changes massively in the future.
Getting protection from an ally with competent conventional military would be in Russia's interest
Nuclear weapons mean you dont need this.
And the only thing Russia has to offer in negotiations is nuclear disarmament.
No, they also have peace in Ukraine to offer up and that's the chip tha
Re: (Score:2)
They also have Putin to offer. They could hand him over for one of those mock trials like when we doped up Saddam... even stoned out of his head he was still able to score some good points in court, but statistically nobody remembers that. Throwing Putin to the wolves would be a good symbolic gesture, and reduce nuclear tension (unless they somehow chose to replace him with someone even wackier.)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Russia can't offer peace as long as Russia is nuclear-armed because Russia does not know how to negotiate in good faith
I dont understand how the makes any sense. If Russia falls back to within its borders Ukraine is not going to follow them over. That would be completely absurd over reach for them. If Russias forces are out of Ukraine and Ukraine wont cross their border or shoot in then the war is effectively over.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
We're mostly agreeing here but when I google "when have sanctions worked" my first result lists thirteen instances in the last hundred years https://www.washingtonpost.com... [washingtonpost.com] .
Furthermore, "work" can mean different things. From what I've read US sanctions have at least slowed development of nuclear weapons in Iran and that is certainly doing something although obviously the problem still remains.
Sanctions are most certainly not a guaranteed win but I don't think they're pointless either.
Re: (Score:2)
Sanctions are not even a short term problem anymore.
vs
https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/p... [ssrn.com] But maybe these eggheads are wrong and the Potemkin village is actually doing very well. Time will tell.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: if Russia touchs nato then it may be ww3 (Score:4, Interesting)
The sanctions don't hit the population that much, but they hit Russia's ability to trade. Russia is hemorrhaging money right now. I'd be very surprised if they can carry on for more than another year, unless they somehow convince their population that total war is the key to success.
Then it's two years. And the fall will just be much, much harder.
Re: (Score:3)
For now, yes. But Ukraine will certainly want Crimea back, and it's practically a sealed deal that Ukraine will join NATO not long after. And that is something Russia simply cannot accept. No matter the cost, this is NOT an option to Russia.
Re: (Score:2)
What Russia should do is get rid of its tanks (which it is doing now) and then get rid of Vlad.
Re:if Russia touchs nato then it may be ww3 (Score:5, Interesting)
guarantees (Score:2)
...Based on performance in Ukraine, the *logical* thing for Russia to do is to get rid of nuclear weapons and change it's constitution to a position of neutrality in exchange for security guarantees from Moldova or something along those lines.
Russia demonstrated that they do not respect security guarantees given in exchange for getting rid of nuclear weapons, since they had guaranteed Ukraine's security when Ukraine gave up their nuclear weapons.
Given that they have shown that they do not respect security guarantees, why do would you think they would value security guarantees from anybody else.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Russia would likely do something stupid like roll in with a bunch of armor, something most of Europe can't counter.
Russia couldnt even pull off an invasion of Ukraine, it's conventional forces are not a threat to NATO Europe as a whole, particularly with a major portion of those forces already bogged down in Ukraine.
The important thing to remember is that's a battle being fought on Russia's terms, ie, armour and artillery.
NATO forces aren't built around armour and artillery, they're built around air power. Ukraine is beating Russia using artillery systems from the 90s [wikipedia.org] made by a military that doesn't invest in artillery.
Against an actual NATO member the fighter jets that Russian anti-aircraft can't touch come out and all that artillery and armour is sitting ducks.
Re: (Score:2)
Russia couldnt even pull off an invasion of Ukraine, it's conventional forces are not a threat to NATO Europe as a whole, particularly with a major portion of those forces already bogged down in Ukraine.
That's what is so terrifying.
If the war goes beyond Ukraine, Russia's only choice is to go nuclear.
Re: (Score:3)
Russia would likely do something stupid like roll in with a bunch of armor, something most of Europe can't counter. Germany hasn't been working on anti-tank gear to the degree necessary to defend NATO members. Poland and the Baltic states are particularly vulnerable, with neither the resources to defend themselves or neighbors that can help.
All that armor they are holding in reserve?
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
I doubt even Putin seriously contemplates a nuclear conflict, and if his subordinates thought for one second he was about unleash the Apocalypse, I doubt even his security detail would prevent them from hauling him off to a dacha for a "well-earned retirement".
Re: (Score:2)
Which is actually massive compared to what european armies have:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com]
But then again, we won't see large tank battles like in WW2. It'll be tanks vs. anti-tank missiles.
Re: (Score:3)
Russia would likely do something stupid like roll in with a bunch of armor
Russia shot that wad already. They cannot shoot it again. They are now fielding tanks you can kill with rifles. They cannot build their modern tanks due to sanctions, and they are vulnerable to Javelin missiles anyway.
Re: (Score:2)
On a side note...
How low is our inventory of Javelin missiles getting....especially considering the chip/parts shortages?
I hope we're somehow building more to replace the ones being used now...
Re: (Score:2)
Interesting analysis, though I hope you're wrong in some of the details...
My current analysis has been reduced a lot:
Ukraine never posed an existential threat to Russia. At worst, Ukraine might have inconvenienced some people who identify as Russian. But the situation has deteriorated to the point where a Russian defeat in Ukraine has become an existential threat--to Vladimir Putin.
On that basis I'm expecting Putin to go nuclear when he gets desperate enough. The latest shenanigans around the nuclear reactor (as focused on in this story) might be evidence of such desperation, but there are other options. Examples include a dirty bomb in Russia blamed on the Ukrainians (perhaps using materials taken from Chornobyl) or a tactical nuke in Ukraine blamed on NATO (perhaps us
Re: (Score:3)
Russia's alleged might has pretty much been fought to a standstill by Ukraine forces using Western equipment. If Russia rolled over the border into NATO territory, it would be fighting actually NATO armies far more significantly equipped than Ukraine. I think the one thing we can say for certain about the Russian invasion of Ukraine is that whatever our dark imaginations about Russian power, or memories of the Soviet years may be, Russia's actual ability to project force is astonishingly limited. Yes, it ha
Re: (Score:2)
The lack of anti-tank and attack helicopters in a few key NATO members makes a decisive response unlikely. Germany about 50 in working order, most of them inferior to Mi-28 and Ka-52. France and Italy can field more, but it's not clear if they can get them into position quickly enough given the current strategy of letting Russia play around for months at a border pretending not to invade.
If Russia rolled into a NATO country. Eventually Russia supply lines would collapse, as they would not be able to defend
Re: (Score:2)
Most of the regular army capacity is mired down in Ukraine. They would have to call in reserves for any significant incursion into NATO territory. I honestly don't think it's even possible at this point, and if they did, then NATO would not only defend the Eastern European states, but it would punch through Russia via Ukraine, and suddenly Russia would have a two front war. Do you think a bunch of reservists and whatever pathetic contribution Belarus is going to make (if it does at all, I have a feeling Luk
Re: (Score:2)
Most of the regular army capacity is mired down in Ukraine. They would have to call in reserves for any significant incursion into NATO territory.
What reserves? Russia is a conscription based army with two years of mandatory service. Dedovshchina guarantees that none of their citizens will willingly sign up to fight in the Russian military. They're already not paying or properly provisioning their existing soldiers because their supply lines are toast. The only actual wild card in this whole farce is Kim Jung Un. I have no idea what the relationship between those two countries is, but I've read that they are "expanding their relationship" and if that
Re: (Score:2)
After a Russian invasion of a NATO member
Don't talk shite man!
Putin may be mad, but he (and his generals) aren't daft enough to attack NATO.
NATO Article 5: an attack against one Ally is considered as an attack against all Allies
Re: (Score:3)
Russia would likely do something stupid like roll in with a bunch of armor, something most of Europe can't counter.
You really haven't been paying attention in class, have you? Ukraine has done a damned good job of stopping Russian armor. It's doubtful Russia has enough armor left to invade anyone else. Let alone everyone else can see what Ukraine did and stop said armor.
After a Russian invasion of a NATO member, which would not be something that could be stopped
Really? You have to be a Russian troll, I can't imagine anyone being so stupid. If Ukraine can stop them, anyone can. Especially as Ukraine has destroyed most of the Orc's potential invasion force.
You're right about one thing though. The only w
Re: (Score:2)
The US has pretty significant forces and equipment and Germany. Russia couldn't simply march into Germany, and considering how well marching into Ukraine has been, why would you imagine an invasion of Germany would go any better?
Re:if Russia touchs nato then it may be ww3 (Score:5, Interesting)
The Ukraine invasion alone has required 85% of Russia's ground forces. They can barely handle the few dozen long-range artillery systems and the handful of ammo that the west shipped to Ukraine .
If a single NATO country, even a small one, decided to invade Russia right now, they would have barely anything to counter the attack with. They are extremely vulnerable and they know it. And there's absolutely no guarantee that China would lift a finger to help them. China doesn't want to take a bite of that sh^& sandwich.
In order to win this, all the west needs to do is maintain resolve when Russia turns off their gas pipelines, keep shipping Ukraine a small stream of western-quality weapons and munitions, and help train their forces (the UK is training something like 10 thousand Ukrainian troops).
Re:if Russia touchs nato then it may be ww3 (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:if Russia touchs nato then it may be ww3 (Score:5, Interesting)
Even in Iraq it took more. Do you think Russia is weaker than Iraq? I think the Western media exaggerates Ukrainians successes. They don't show Russian successes and Ukrainian loses.
You need to watch better new sources. The BBC routinely shows maps of Russian gains and the small Ukrainian advances in this war of attrition, as well as the completely destroyed towns the Russians have besieged and "captured" (I'm not sure whether holding some ground where a town used to be really is capturing that town).
What isn't very well reported is the scale of Russian losses in terms of men (and women) on the ground - almost every western Russian town and village has losses from amongst its population now. Putin has staked his reputation on not calling up the army reserves - because that would be an admission that this is more than a "special military operation". So the troops in Ukraine are a small portion of the Russian army's theoretical strength and it is looking like they may not be enough because of the amount of material being fed in from outside.
The crunch will come when Putin finally has to decide whether to admit to his people that this really is a war or to give up and go home.
Re: (Score:2)
The Ukraine invasion alone has required 85% of Russia's ground forces.
Who is fighting for Russia now are the full time forces, which are relatively compact, volunteers (for hire), private companies, and also the mobilized population of Ukraine's separatist Donbass region. Russian reservists or conscripts have been largely kept out of this war, while Ukraine has fully mobilized its population. And for a good reason, if Kremlin tries to draw reservists or conscript forces, it may turn out that the war and Put
Re: (Score:2)
That's pretty much the size of it. Thus far Putin has been able to mask the full costs of the invasion from the Russian public, but if this turns into another Afghanistan, with endless parades of coffins flowing back into the country, and a lot of mothers are getting letters about their dead reservist sons, then Russia enters the same dangerous domestic territory that ended up felling people like Wilhelm II and Nicholas II. And regular and secret police have their limits, as both the last Czar and the would
Re: (Score:2)
Whether or not it would be a good idea is orthogonal to the point. At this moment it would be a trivial exercise, but nobody actually wants to do it anyway. Russians have already sacked Russia, there's no profit in it now.
Re: (Score:2)
I don't think anyone would ever contemplate attacking Russian soil with the idea of occupation. It would be more along the lines of neutering its defensive and industrial capabilities; more like NATO's response to Serbia. It's all conjecture, because Russia is a nuclear state, but without the nukes, the objective would basically be to crush military and industrial capacity, not to occupy a single inch of Russian ground, save perhaps at the borders to prevent any last ditch attempt by Russian troops at a bre
Re: (Score:2)
What is necessary for us to finally realize that this ain't just a local conflict between a country we don't like and a country we don't give a fuck about?
What's the alternative course of action?
The only significant additional sanctions would involve natural gas, but those hurt Europe a lot more than they hurt Russia.
And Western military action risks sparking a Nuclear war, which Putin might not mind as a "small scale" Nuclear war might scare the west into abandoning Ukraine (probably not, but Russia has very little chance of winning the current course of the conflict).
Re: (Score:2)
What is necessary for us to finally realize that this ain't just a local conflict between a country we don't like and a country we don't give a fuck about?
What's the alternative course of action?
The only significant additional sanctions would involve natural gas, but those hurt Europe a lot more than they hurt Russia.
And Western military action risks sparking a Nuclear war, which Putin might not mind as a "small scale" Nuclear war might scare the west into abandoning Ukraine (probably not, but Russia has very little chance of winning the current course of the conflict).
Russia's defence budget pretty neatly matches the amount of money they make off of gas sales to Europe. Considering that they are at war and burning through equipment at a fantastic rate I'd say sanctions on gas and oil would hurt Russia quite a bit more than the Europeans since Russia can't just pivot on a dime and start selling gas and oil to Asia since the infrastructure just isn't there, in ten years, maybe but not now. For the Europeans no more gas from Russia would be really uncomfortable but for Puti
Re: (Score:2)
What is necessary for us to finally realize that this ain't just a local conflict between a country we don't like and a country we don't give a fuck about?
What's the alternative course of action?
The only significant additional sanctions would involve natural gas, but those hurt Europe a lot more than they hurt Russia.
And Western military action risks sparking a Nuclear war, which Putin might not mind as a "small scale" Nuclear war might scare the west into abandoning Ukraine (probably not, but Russia has very little chance of winning the current course of the conflict).
Russia's defence budget pretty neatly matches the amount of money they make off of gas sales to Europe. Considering that they are at war and burning through equipment at a fantastic rate I'd say sanctions on gas and oil would hurt Russia quite a bit more than the Europeans since Russia can't just pivot on a dime and start selling gas and oil to Asia since the infrastructure just isn't there, in ten years, maybe but not now. For the Europeans no more gas from Russia would be really uncomfortable but for Putin it's a question of where he is going to get the money to keep the Russian public from sending him to the great beyond the same way the Lybians did Gaddafi if the standard of living in Russia plummets low enough.
They'd do what any country does, borrow.
It's nice if the books balance, but if cash runs short I'm sure he can find lenders to get what he needs. Countries don't throw in the towel in a major war due to budget constraints, they stop because they've run out of manpower and their industrial base can't keep up. Running a big budget deficit contributes to that as there's a risk you trigger hyper-inflation and the whole supply chain breaks down, but I don't think Russia's near that point.
The biggest effect of th
Re: (Score:2)
It's nice if the books balance, but if cash runs short I'm sure he can find lenders to get what he needs. Countries don't throw in the towel in a major war due to budget constraints, they stop because they've run out of manpower and their industrial base can't keep up. Running a big budget deficit contributes to that as there's a risk you trigger hyper-inflation and the whole supply chain breaks down, but I don't think Russia's near that point.
Any borrowing Russia might be able to find will be at astronomical interest rates. They are clearly a very high risk. Like how desperate people turn to payday loans and pawn shops, that is Russia today.
And hey, it has only been 5 months. We'll talk again in 5 years and see how Russia is doing then. Putin wanted the USSR back. He is certainly getting the Soviet era economy back. We crushed them once economically without even having to fire a shot. We can do it again, no problem. If anything it wil
Re: (Score:2)
It's nice if the books balance, but if cash runs short I'm sure he can find lenders to get what he needs. Countries don't throw in the towel in a major war due to budget constraints, they stop because they've run out of manpower and their industrial base can't keep up. Running a big budget deficit contributes to that as there's a risk you trigger hyper-inflation and the whole supply chain breaks down, but I don't think Russia's near that point.
Any borrowing Russia might be able to find will be at astronomical interest rates. They are clearly a very high risk. Like how desperate people turn to payday loans and pawn shops, that is Russia today.
And hey, it has only been 5 months. We'll talk again in 5 years and see how Russia is doing then. Putin wanted the USSR back. He is certainly getting the Soviet era economy back. We crushed them once economically without even having to fire a shot. We can do it again, no problem. If anything it will be easier the second time.
The other risk is that major gas shortages in Europe create an opening for far-right parties to get in power and they start trying to kill the sanctions completely.
Gas sanctions are an effective tool, but because of the degree to which they harm Europe as well I think they're a tool that's best utilized when the hyper-inflation fears are starting to kick in and the additional sanctions collapse the industrial base in a month or two.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
That's why he is still letting a dribble of gas through. At current prices he can sell 1/10th of the amount of gas he used to sell, and make the same gross revenue, with a higher net profit probably. He can still pay his bills and squeeze Europe at the same time, and until gas prices settle at a more or less normal level again, he can shrug off these sanctions.
The price of gas and oil are both coming down as alternatives to Russia slowly ramp up. The days of using those as a weapon will probably be over within a year.
Re: (Score:2)
It's going to take longer than that. Pretty much all gas from outside Europe is spoken for, and its going to require more infrastructure in both Europe and elsewhere (like LNG from North America). I'm thinking Europe is in for a 3-5 years of pain. In the long run it will be free of Russian petro-politics, but that is going to take time and money.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
The US has made it pretty clear it's not letting anyone give jets to Ukraine. The deal Poland tried to push through was vetoed by the Biden Administration precisely because it was viewed by the experts as crossing the line and by degrees turning NATO into a direct belligerent, in violation of the treaty. NATO is walking the finest of lines with equipping Ukraine. Military training by NATO countries of Ukraine troops is starting up again, but will be happening outside of Ukraine, for the mere fact that even
Re: (Score:2)
Re:So what exactly does it take? (Score:4, Insightful)
Why shouldn't the citizens of those countries be free to decide what security treaties they want to join? Especially since having experienced it before, they have no desire to live under Russian rule again?
Larger picture (Score:4, Interesting)
Why shouldn't the citizens of those countries be free to decide what security treaties they want to join? Especially since having experienced it before, they have no desire to live under Russian rule again?
While that's a fair and completely moral point of view, there's something called "the larger picture" that you also have to take into account.
First think about *why* allowing countries (or people) to freely choose is a good thing: because ultimately, it leads to less overall misery. Ethics can be loosely based on three principles of "life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness", which means that life (being alive) is more important than being enslaved, and freedom (from slavery) is more important than free will choice, and so on. Effectively, you work on one at a time and there's a priority queue.
You can claim that the original constitution was flawed because it recognized and tolerated slavery, and didn't give women the vote. That's completely true, but at the same time it got us one step along that path, and we were able to take further steps later on. Taking the high road by asking for everything all at once from the outset, and opposing any compromise that doesn't solve all issues, would have made it impossible to get to where we are now.
So in the case of Ukraine, the US could have stated categorically that Ukraine would not be let into NATO, and Putin would have backed down (he wanted a buffer zone, he didn't want NATO countries directly bordering Russia). This would have put the pin back into the hand grenade for a couple of years, and maybe a decade hence Putin would have passed away and we could have revisited that decision.
While it wouldn't have been the right decision from a "freedom" point of view, it would have eliminated all the suffering and death that resulted from the current war.
And suffering and death is happening on both sides: Eastern Ukraine is getting bombed into the stone age (infrastructure is being flattened by artillery), and Russia will suffer from the draconian economic sanctions for a couple of decades.
And all because "freedom to choose" was considered a moral absolute with no overriding higher moral issues (life) and without considering consequences.
Re: (Score:3)
While it wouldn't have been the right decision from a "freedom" point of view, it would have eliminated all the suffering and death that resulted from the current war.
No, that's where you're wrong. It would have simply led to different suffering and death, that cost Russia a lot less. That's not a good outcome for anyone but Russia.
Re:Larger picture (Score:5, Insightful)
So in the case of Ukraine, the US could have stated categorically that Ukraine would not be let into NATO, and Putin would have backed down
No way. He absolutely would not have backed-down. Here is why:
First, remember that Putin made up a half-dozen other reasons to invade that had nothing to do with NATO: Ukraine was lead by Nazis, Ukraine was staging an attack on Russia, Ukrainians wanted to be part of Russia, Ukraine was stolen Russian territory and Russia is just retaking it, Ukraine was building chemical weapons to use against Russia...
Next, everyone seems to forget that Russia had already dropped your proverbial grenade on Crimea. Putin cannot put a pin back in a grenade that had already exploded.
Finally, Russia already had Ukraine as a buffer zone against NATO. Invading Ukraine took that away. So clearly they did not truly want a buffer zone against NATO.
Re:Larger picture (Score:4, Interesting)
While that's a fair and completely moral point of view, there's something called "the larger picture" that you also have to take into account.
Larger picture is that aggression is incompatible with continued life on earth. The age of conquest that winded its way thru all of human history ended with trinity. More people and nations are willing to normalize, tolerate or otherwise appease conquest the higher the chance of nuclear winter. There is no larger picture than that.
Ethics can be loosely based on three principles of "life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness", which means that life (being alive) is more important than being enslaved, and freedom (from slavery) is more important than free will choice, and so on. Effectively, you work on one at a time and there's a priority queue.
While this is a value judgment to which you are entitled you should understand many people (myself included) disagree with it.
So in the case of Ukraine, the US could have stated categorically that Ukraine would not be let into NATO, and Putin would have backed down (he wanted a buffer zone, he didn't want NATO countries directly bordering Russia). This would have put the pin back into the hand grenade for a couple of years, and maybe a decade hence Putin would have passed away and we could have revisited that decision.
Anyone who knows what Putin wants is full of shit. You don't know so don't say you do. You are entitled to an opinion/guess but don't go passing that off as anything else.
There was no imminent risk of Ukraine joining NATO anytime in the foreseeable future so these claims NATO expansion was the trigger are rather weak. Putin can't even keep his own story straight with all his liberation of oppressed Russian speaking peoples, Nazis, and demilitarization bullshit.
While it wouldn't have been the right decision from a "freedom" point of view, it would have eliminated all the suffering and death that resulted from the current war.
And suffering and death is happening on both sides: Eastern Ukraine is getting bombed into the stone age (infrastructure is being flattened by artillery), and Russia will suffer from the draconian economic sanctions for a couple of decades.
This isn't rocket science. If you attack people with weapons who've not done shit to you for no reason and get cut down in the process don't expect anyone to give a flying fuck about your own suffering and death. It's earned and most people will be more than happy to actively celebrate it.
And all because "freedom to choose" was considered a moral absolute with no overriding higher moral issues (life) and without considering consequences.
Have you attempted to imagine what the world would be like if everyone simply capitulated to tyrants in order to preserve their lives?
Re:Larger picture (Score:4, Interesting)
So in the case of Ukraine, the US could have stated categorically that Ukraine would not be let into NATO, and Putin would have backed down (he wanted a buffer zone, he didn't want NATO countries directly bordering Russia). This would have put the pin back into the hand grenade for a couple of years, and maybe a decade hence Putin would have passed away and we could have revisited that decision.
Putin accomplished that in 2014. NATO does not accept countries with an ongoing territorial dispute (too easy for that to turn into a war), and the moment Russia annexed Crimea and carved off two "separatist republics" Ukraine had some major territorial disputes and could absolutely not join NATO.
That's one of the reasons that Russia took chunks out of Georgia and Moldova as well, to prevent them from getting into NATO.
Now perhaps you could think NATO would make an exception... except the territorial dispute was with Russia which creates a path to Nuclear war.
Now, how could you possibly go from the situation post-2014 to Ukraine being a member of NATO? Resolve the territorial disputes. Which is exactly what Putin was demanding before Feb 24th (recognize Crimea and the breakaways).
So Putin was clearly not motivated by fear of Ukraine joining NATO.
Re: (Score:2)
Because that's not how geo-politics work.
In the same way the USA reacts aggressively when someone plays around in its backyard - see Cuba, Panama or the whole of South America - Russia doesn't like its neighbours joining the enemy. The baltic states were lucky that they did it at a time when Russia was in no shape to object. Ukraine had shitty timing.
Re: (Score:2)
Because that's not how geo-politics work.
How does it work?
Re: (Score:3)
he would have done it like he did Belarus by driving up with dump trucks full of money for their leaders to do what Putin says
He already did that to Ukraine. Then Ukraine voted out their president when he didn't support the European-friendly trade setup that was in-progress because he couldn't keep up the facade any longer. Immediately after he was voted out, there was suddenly an uprising in Crimea and the Donbas. It's no coincidence - Russia has backup plans.
Why would we even have a NATO if we won't allow these countries to join? If Russia takes over those countries, NATO would be right up against Russia anyway.
Nobody would have died.
Not officiall
Re: (Score:2)
Nobody would have died.
Belarus has turned into a shithole where people are actively disappeared. I'm glad you don't give a shit about others, but pretending "no one died" when dictators strengthen their iron fist rule over a nation is just outright stupid.
Re: (Score:2)
LOL. Try not to buy any bridges or invest in any Ponzi schemes on your way through the parking lot.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
You mention a "coup" what coup?
what do you mean "what coup"? have you done *any* previous research into this topic?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
Re:So what exactly does it take? (Score:4, Informative)
A defensive alliance against Russia is no threat unless they intended to invade these countries. They know this and everything they say is just posturing and intimidation.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
ukraine is a) a border state b) of significant size and influence where c) russia has several very significant strategic interests.
anyone thinking any western nation or power can happily waltz into such a place to change the status quo in any meaningful way without consequence or retaliation is either delusional, just simple or plainly dishonest. if they have been repeatedly warned and still double down i'd reduce that to simply "hostile existential threat".
Re: (Score:2)
What is necessary for us to finally realize that this ain't just a local conflict between a country we don't like and a country we don't give a fuck about?
A NATO target needs to go boom. Until then, politically at least this war is someone else's problem unfortunately.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Yes, I think it would have ended there.
The invasion started on Thursday. Only hours later, Russia announced a press conference for Tuesday. That press conference never happened.
Russia planned this as a quick raid, which also explains the horribly poor supply and reinforcement situation. The war was supposed to be over within a week. And Russian supply doctrine relies on their troops being able to operate for 1-2 weeks without any reinforcement or resupply. The idea was to rush in, seize Kyiv and dictate the
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You seem to have local conflict confused with illegal invasion. You think Russia would just stop once they annexed part of Ukraine?
Re: (Score:2)
Some people view Russia as a force of nature. When Russia invades Ukraine--that is like the tide coming in. When Western countries try to help Ukraine, that is an artificial intervention, like building a levee.
It isn't that people think Russia would stop at Ukraine, but the tide stops where it stops.
Re:That's all it should be (Score:4, Insightful)
I'm going to be blunt. There are people in the West who are Putin admirers. It's not that they take any particular moral stance on whether invading places like Georgia and Ukraine and annexing territory is right or wrong, they like that kind of strongman. He hates the LGBTQ community, he rides shirtless on horseback, has biker gangs for minions, and wantonly imprisons or murders filthy liberal capitulator critics. For them, Putin is the ideal leader, an anti-woke leader, macho and tough talking. And if Putin decides to invade another country and seize its territory, well, we shouldn't be involved at all.
Re: (Score:2)
My God your are such a fucking tool of the state, a real agent of war. Do you get a special badge for that? For every 10 Ukrainians killed do you get a free order or fries or something? Disgusting. Your support of prolonging a war that should have been long over, is horrific.
Don't bother answering because I don't read responses from genocidal retards such as yourself.
You were doing great until this part. Too obvious, 0/10 because you fucked up.
Re: (Score:2)
Well, if nothing else, it's demonstrated the severe limitations of Russian armor and strategy. Like certain other wars (the Boer War, for instance), it's a test run of the technology for the next big war, and what it's shown is the day of the tank is done. The newer weapons render that kind of armor useless, so now military planners and procurers in just about every army in the world know they can shut down production, and ultimately scrap or sell their tanks and armored vehicles. Much like the first ironcl
Re:So what exactly does it take? (Score:4, Insightful)
First graze an apartment building with a missile where one could plausibly argue it was an accident. Then have a tank fire into a civilian building so it might be viewed as one lone soldier. Then hit a maternity hospital. But then we find out that there was mass torture and rape everywhere the Russian soldiers went. And now, they might intentionally cause a nuclear accident. I guess that's only incrementally worse than mass gangrapes?
The world said "never again" after WW2 and yet, so far, Russia's atrocities make those of ww2 seem mild. But the irresponsible nuclear sabre rattling has made responses too trepid. Hopefully that will change. But there is no such thing as "as far as the act goes" with Russia as long as there is a single Russian soldier left alive. And you know that. How the hell is this above -1?
Re: (Score:2)
That's the way Russia fights, always. They don't have enough precision munitions and prefer to carpet bomb enemies from air or with artillery barrage, betting on their numerical superiority. Target spotting is poor because they don't have as many military drones. Their most advanced UAV is a licensed copy of Israel's IAI Searcher from 90s.
Fukashima disaster coming if something happens? (Score:2)
Fukashima disaster coming if something happens? and there is no gird power to run the coolers?
Re: (Score:2)
Fukashima disaster coming if something happens? and there is no gird power to run the coolers?
"Chernobyl", I think you'll find.
Re: (Score:2)
Europeans have a bit of PTSD when it comes to radioactive clouds floating over densely populated cities.
Re: (Score:2)
Fukushima (spelled with a u not a), didn't go boom because there was no grid (spelled with ir not ri) power to run the coolers. It went boom because there was no ability to connect emergency backup power.
Nuclear plants are literally designed for a grid outage.
Re: (Score:2)
Nope, I'm an engineer who used work for a contractor who among other things designed systems for the nuclear power industry.
Power plants are literally designed for the eventuality of a power loss. The primary issue at Fukushima was that the tsunami disabled the local diesel power generators, secondary issue is that the external access points were incompatible with the equipment used to attempt to bring external emergency power.
Let me spell this out to you: The diesel generators are part of the design that t
Have to get their weapons out first (Score:2)
It wasn't bad enough they had hundreds of their troops get radiation sickness by digging into the soil around Chernobyl, now they're going to take chances with an active nuclear plant. Considering their history of catastrophes at nuclear
Russia: Making life suck for everyone... (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
This is a move of desperation (Score:5, Insightful)
Russia is not threatening the world with nuclear fallout to show strength. But they are doing these stupid moves out of desperation. They have been broken in combat, and they know it.
Ukraine with 20 year old NATO stuff that are almost obsolete, has essentially countered their offensive, and started striking inside Russia motherland itself (no, I am not talking about Crimea, but bases in Belgorod and other cities, some very near Moskov). Their air force is ineffective, losing tens of planes each day, their Black Sea fleet is watching from afar afraid of missiles that took down their flagship (Moskva).
They are losing badly, they are losing "bigly", and the only move they have left is "we are gonna burn down the world".
We just need to call of their bluff (but still be cautious in case they are that crazy).
In the meantime... (Score:3)
... as we've seen in the "news", China is sizing up options RE Taiwan.
The visit by Pelosi was no casual trip - the media reported it as being ... hmm, provocative - but it was a clear sign from the US of power.
Fairly obvious that China are going to zoom in on the fact that Putin has so far, despite sanctions, got the Wests knickers in a twist - playing a game of such profound danger, it beggars belief. Brazenly flirting with fire - "Whudya gonna do 'bout it? Huh?"
It seems fairly obvious that China may make their own land grab, seeing how Putin has played the hand of the West, over fears of nuclear conflict - brinksmanship.
These things play out relatively slowly in terms of media cycles, but in historical terms, are fast.
The West are in a minefield right now - WWIII with the US/Europe and other allies, against Russia/China = end game for civilisation.
What fun, considering the fact that climate breakdown also implies an end game - I guess it'll all come together.
This is the way the world ends, not with a bang... but with a series of bangs...
Re: (Score:2)
We may not be great at nation building,
Look at post WWII American projects like West Germany, South Korea, or Italy. These quickly recovered from the war, developed advanced economies and western style democracies. The problem with Iraq and Afghanistan was that the civilizational conflict or gap between the west and those countries was just too great. I don't understand why anyone in DC believed that nation building in Afghanistan could end in any other way than what we witnessed a year ago.
On the other han
Re: (Score:2)
The US did what it could, but while Russia was in bad shape, it wasn't basically bombed into the stone age like Japan. Unfortunately, Russia itself ended up being run by Boris Yeltsin, who while I have nothing but praise for his courage and demeanor after the coup and arrest of Gorbachev, proved to physically and mentally feeble to be an effective leader of an economy in crisis. But the reality is the Russia we see today is a direct product of the West's general 1990s consensus that if we just do business w
Re: (Score:2)
In the 20th century, especially the latter half American military success to me seems to really hinge on whether we have "moral justification".
WWII, Gulf War, Kosovo, beginning of Afghanistan, Ukraine etc. I would say the US had broad public support, regional allies and we were "in the right" and all were successes.
Vietnam/Cambodia, Afghanistan occupation and Iraq all lacked those things and have been failures. Korea I would say was kinda grey and keeping with the theory ended in a stalemate although post
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)