1) defending and promoting democracy everywhere has long been a stated goal of US policy.Sam Lowry said:I generally agree that we should make Putin pay a price. You are relying heavily on assumptions, however, which increase the chances that we lose control of the situation. I'm sure Putin isn't a madman in the sense that he has a diagnosable psychotic illness. Does that mean he couldn't make a rational calculation that using nukes was appropriate? His position is that he could. That should carry some weight in our own calculations. Like most who are bedeviled by escalation to nuclear war, you miss quite a bit of context about Russian doctrine and weapons systems capabilities. The context is tactical nukes, not intercontinental ballistic missiles. Tactical nukes by definition, given their capabilities and known Russian doctrine, do not pose a military threat to anyone beyond the borders of Ukraine. Use of tactical nukes by Russia against Ukraine may well have an environmental impact on Europe, which is not an inconsiderable issue, but it does not pose a threat to escalate to war with the West, either. The west is angry about potential nuclear fallout, so it launches a wave of its own nukes within Europe? People making arguments thusly predicated are simply not serious.whiterock said:Fact 1: Russia has taken no action to invite Nato direct intervention in the conflict. Literally, Nato confirms it verbally every day.Sam Lowry said:I count 1 fact in evidence, 3 predictions, and 6 opinions, many of which are dubious.whiterock said:Summary:Osodecentx said:Thanks for a thoughtful response.whiterock said:You are mis-hearing and then mis-interpreting what they're saying. (and some of them are just plain wrong). In a Cold War scenario, where Russian troops were pouring thru the Fulda Gap, the risk of use of nuclear weapons was quite high because Russian doctrine allows field commanders to decide if/when to use tactical nukes in battle. Virtual certainty that tactical nuclear weapons (artillery) would have been employed on European soil. Very likely that such would escalate to theater nukes (short-range ballistic missile) as well. Much political contention in European parliaments about USA deploying Pershing II systems (for reasons mentioned previously). Whether or not that would have invited intercontinental nuclear exchanges between Russia and the USA was much topic for debate, which was never and will never be settled because it is a hypothetical. Don't know your age, but the Cold War was mine and I was an active participant in the silent part of it.Osodecentx said:Every expert disagrees with your assessment. Russian war doctrine says nukes can/should be used.whiterock said:
It's never zero, and scarcely higher now than before the war started.
If Putin thought starting a war in Ukraine had the remotest chance of triggering thermonuclear war, he would not have invaded Ukraine.
Two things are driving the chatter about looming Armageddon: 1) the radical left, who never wants to risk political capital on any conflict that does not involve domestic culture wars; and 2) moderates and libertarian conservatives who perceive Dems & Republicans as a "uniparty" who seek military engagement for financial and political gain.
Putin miscalculated and is bogged down. We should open the floodgates of military aid and let the Ukrainians maul him, for a number of reason, not the least of which is demonstrating to China that Taiwan is not to be ****ed with.
Mearsheimer et al are right on the geopolitics of Ukraine but wrong on the question of self-determination. Yes, Ukraine is a shatterzone adjacent to Russia but their future is their own and we gain nothing by abandoning them to a slow strangling by the Russian bear. Tyrants most of all must understand that we will not alligator arm an aspiring democracy.
In the current situation, Russian tactical use of nuclear weapons in Ukraine poses no threat to US troops or soil, as US troops are not in battle with Russian forces. Further, neither Russian troops or Russian soil would be at risk of a US counter-strike, since US forces are not engaged in Ukraine.
The scenarios where the war in Ukraine invited a wider nuclear war are simply not realistic. Russia is not going to take ANY action to invite NATO into the conflict. NATO all along has clearly signaled it will not commit forces to the conflict, as long as the conflict stays in Ukraine. Putin knew that. He also knew, as I have noted in other threads, that NATO itself would be a formidable barrier for any NATO nation to touch, much less enter the Ukraine crisis, as any unilateral action at all would risk Article 5 protections, which were of most concern to the smaller nations closest to the conflict (Poland, Baltics, et al...). In other words, Putin knew he would get a one-on-one cage match with Kiev. Ergo his choice to go in. He paid no attention whatsoever to all the pre-war drama. He knew his hands were free to act as he wished.
Provision of sophisticated weapon systems by NATO nations to Ukraine has already been done.
Such did not invite a nuclear response.
Given the nature of the weapons systems...capabilities, cost, threat profile....jet fighters are not an escalation.
Polish jets to Kiev is not going to cause Russia to launch nukes at ANY Nato nation.
Such is really quite silly.
Putin is not a madman. He's quite clear-eyed, and is merely acting within the envelope he (correctly) knows conditions afford him.
Putin knows he is no match for Nato or the USA.
He has no chance of defeating them; engagement with them would court either defeat or destruction.
People hyping nuclear war between Nato and Russia are just waiving their skirt.
Not going to happen.
There is ZERO chance that Putin would have invaded UKR if he though such would expose his country to a nuclear response from the USA. We must steel our nerves and do exactly what the envelope affords us, and that is to feed military equipment and munitions to Ukraine, openly and unreservedly, to make Russia bleed profusely. The bear has a tiger by the tail and we have nothing to gain by letting the bear smother the tiger. Now is the time to teach Putin lessons about deterrence: 1) that the West will not alligator arm support for democracy, anywhere, at any time; and 2) that we will not hesitate to facilitate the destruction of a Russian Army in a place the Russian Army should not be.
My trouble with your response is all of the declarative sentences which assume perfect knowledge of Putin's thoughts and calculations. If you are incorrect on any of them we could have a cataclysm. As noted in an earlier post, the chance of cataclysm is never zero.
Below is a partial list of your sure fire observations about a man and a country:
Russian tactical use of nuclear weapons in Ukraine poses no threat to US troops or soil, as US troops are not in battle with Russian forces.
The scenarios where the war in Ukraine invited a wider nuclear war are simply not realistic.
Russia is not going to take ANY action to invite NATO into the conflict.
Putin knew that.
Provision of sophisticated weapon systems by NATO nations to Ukraine has already been done.
Such did not invite a nuclear response.
Provision of sophisticated weapon systems by NATO nations to Ukraine has already been done.
Such did not invite a nuclear response.
jet fighters are not an escalation.
Polish jets to Kiev is not going to cause Russia to launch nukes at ANY Nato nation.
Putin is not a madman. He's quite clear-eyed, and is merely acting within the envelope he (correctly) knows conditions afford him.
Putin knows he is no match for Nato or the USA.
Not going to happen.
There is ZERO chance that Putin would have invaded UKR if he though such would expose his country to a nuclear response from the USA.
7 of those 10 items are facts in evidence.
The other 3 are obvious conclusions based on those facts.
Fact 2: Stingers and Javelins have been provided. They are sophisticated weapon systems. A Javelin & 10 rounds is a 7-digit spend.
Fact 3: Russia has taken no retaliatory action for initial, subsequent, and future (billions of dollars worth just approved) weapons deliveries, despite Javelins and Stingers being primarily responsible for bogging down the Russian offensive.
Fact 4: Putin is not a madman.
Fact 5: Given what we have seen thus far, not one single person on earth could possibly think Russia is a match for Nato.
Fact 6: Putin has never taken an action to invite a nuclear response from USA. In fact, no one on earth since 1946 has done so.
Fact 7: Russian tactical nukes are not currently a threat to US or Nato troops, as neither US nor Nato troops are engaged in Ukraine, nor are they engaged with Russian forces anywhere in the world. Tactical nukes are not intercontinental nukes. They are not intermediate nukes. They are battlefield nukes, artillery, dozens of miles range, not hundreds or thousands of miles range. (Know your weapons before you post, dude...)
Given the above facts, the following are obvious conclusions:
1.) Putin has 100% negative incentives to take actions that would invite Nato involvement in Ukraine. He's got all he can handle, barely, with Ukrainians in Ukraine. Only a madman would take action to invite NATO to wade in. (See Fact 4.) Miscalculation is not evidence of being a madman. Putin merely thought Ukraine would roll over like Chechnya, Transnistra, Georgia, Tajikistan, Crimea, Donetsk, etc..... So did literally everyone else.
2.) Given #1, the perverse incentives the existence of NATO afforded to Putin have been offset; he is so thoroughly engaged with the Ukrainian mess he created that he has literally no options for escalation other than to just launch nukes. (See Fact 4.) He does not have the military resources to open up a second front in the Baltics or Poland, etc.... He can't gain air superiority against Ukraine, so how is he going to bomb Nato bases? He has revealed the profound military weakness of Russia, who is having to purchase Chinese MREs due to outdated Russian stocks. Meaning? Putin can't feed his armies 50 miles from his own borders, fer crissakes. So he has ZERO conventional military options for escalation. It's either hug the cactus he's on, or nuke his way out of trouble. ( Again, before you argue the latter, see Fact 4.) The guy has been planning this for two decades. He's going to regroup and plot for the future, not end the future for Mother Russia.
3.) Given the Used Polish Migs are worth a few million dollars, and are carbon copies of equipment already in Ukrainian inventory. They could not possibly be any more escalatory than the Javelins & Stingers we have already provided. Moreover, see Items 1&2 - Putin is not going to respond to the transfer of Migs by attacking Nato and triggering Article 5. Nor is he going to proceed directly to strategic nuclear exchange. (See fact 4.) He's going to have to just take it, because he can't do anything about it, because he's holding a Ukranian tar baby.
We didn't think we'd be here 30 days ago.
We thought it'd all be over by now, Kiev ruled by a Russian puppet, Russian army starting to head home. But we're not where we thought we'd be. And because of that, we have a wonderful opportunity to cripple Russia for a generation. We cannot pass on this opportunity, for to do so undermines deterrence. We must make him rue the day he launched an unprovoked attack on a functioning democracy. We must make him understand that democracy wishes him no ill, but we will spare no rod when it comes to teaching him that wherever democracies exist they WILL be supplied inexhaustibly with the means to defend themselves.
Failure to spank Putie-Poot hard at this moment would be a strategic mistake that would cause him to question our resolve to defend the Baltics. We must show no mercy until Russian troops withdraw from Ukraine. When your adversary only respects power, show him power.....without so much as an American bootlace crossing the Ukrainian border.
Whether sending MiGs is an escalation depends partly on the intent behind it and, equally important, how the other side interprets it. Your comparison with Javelins and Stingers misses this aspect. Based on public statements, Biden's people understand it. Only a madman, something we finally seem to have general agreement that Putin is not, would launch intercontinental ballistic missiles in retaliation for provision of any conventional weapon system, particularly when the system in question is used and dated.
American troops don't necessarily have to be in battle with Russian troops in order for tactical nukes to be a threat. We've run simulations where we establish a small no-fly zone in western Ukraine strictly to protect refugees. Despite our assurances, Putin reads this as a sign that NATO is intervening, and he uses tactical nukes preemptively. This demands a response, and it escalates from there. I understand that this may not be realistic in your opinion. But your opinion is just that. Others disagree. You undermined your argument with the words "small no fly zone" above. It is not possible to enforce a no-fly zone without Nato troops/pilots launching direct fire at Russian planes/pilots. That is a direct involvement in the conflict and, indeed, could invite a tactical nuclear strike. And it is an entirely different scenario from providing conventional weapon systems to Ukraine.
Perhaps most important, we need to be clear about our reasons for anything and everything we do. Defending democracy everywhere is not a strategic goal. It's a propaganda point, perhaps even an ideal, but it's not something Putin will ever understand as American policy because it never really has been and never will be. We don't want to get carried away and expand our goals based on ideological cheer-leading. There's already evidence of this in your plan, which starts with tacks and banana peels and ends with driving Russia out of Ukraine and pressuring Putin's regime itself -- which by the way is inconsistent with your claim that democracy wishes him no ill. Our policy of regime change in Ukraine was a big part of what created this mess. The worst lesson we could learn here is that Russia calls for more of the same. you misstate frequently here, including on facts in evidence. See below.
2) defending Russia from democracy is a primary reason why Putin is alarmed at Ukraine's turn to the west.
3) I have stated many times that the goal here is to help the Ukrainians maul the Russian bear, not engage directly to drive it out of Ukraine.
4) Democracy does indeed wish Russia no ill. That said, I have explained the historical parallels here, how advancing democracy appears (in Putin's mind) to be just another Catholic crusade to change Orthodox Russia. That Putin perceives things in such a way is his problem, not ours. Understanding his worldview is highly relevant in formulating effective policy, but does not mean we should not help democracy defend itself in Ukraine. As long as the Ukrainian people want and are able to fight for democracy, we should provide them with assistance. We cannot cede the premise that events are to be driven by Putin's worldview; we must pressure his worldview conform to reality.
5) the idea that the West somehow engineered the Orange Revolution out of whole cloth is Russian propaganda. Your analysis suffers thusly.
Putin, as we have ascertained, is not a madman. He will not invoke a nuclear strike against hundreds of Russian cities by launching nuclear strikes at NATO in retaliation for provision of conventional weapons systems to the government of Ukraine. Clinging to nonsense like that is exactly what Putin expected the Western left to do - dither - and it empowers him greatly.
Everyone, myself included, thought the Russian invasion of Ukraine would be over in hours. But we are faced with a completely different scenario - Russia is at risk of losing this war. So we are presented with the unexpected opportunity to facilitate an outright defeat of Russia and destruction of a substantial part of their Army Such would place the Putin regime under incredible stress, focused inwardly on survival rather than projection of power.
And remember China watches all this. If we do not make Putin pay dearly for his miscalculation, XI will be emboldened re Taiwan. Too much caution invites Chinese action. So, again, caution is not at all without risk. It is hardly a safe harbor that many instinctively feel it to be. I can even be quite provocative and make situations worse. We must send a lesson that invading neighbors for regime change is not acceptable behavior. The winner of the battle or not matters less than demonstrating to bullies that such behavior holds potentially existential risk for them. In other words, deterrence......
