I'm not sure of that, given how much bullshit propaganda Zelenski and Kiev have been caught putting out.
Russia may not have the strength of the old USSR, but the are not as weak as you seem to wish to think they are.
That is absolutely a possibility, I agree, given the prevailing winds in the area, as we saw with Chernobyl.
The very fact that they still aren't having a victory parade, nor are preparing for it, shows that they were overestimated, and typical "Russian problems" also common in civilian organizations, government in particular, plague the army horrendously.
Fallout hitting a NATO member would be a massive clusterfuck, which is why I expect we'd see Russia use low yeild airbursts that cause minimal fallout but can still flatten military formations or wreck a good portion of Kiev.
Russia has learned to handle sanctions, but there is a reason we have not sanctioned the oil or gas exports, and not just to keep Europe from freezing or keep gas prices from getting worse.
Yup. Except Russia has not learned to handle this kind of sanctions. No one did, unless being North Korea counts as "handling" sanctions.
We sanction the oil and gas, and Moscow has little reason not to break out the nukes to make a point.
Oil and gas weren't not sanctioned to not provoke Russia, they weren't sanctioned to not cause Germans and Italians to freeze in the dark.
Also, unless China comes out against such a strike, Russia can still use thier alternative to SWIFT.
Sure. They could have done that years ago.
Why didn't they?
Yeah, it's still significantly worse than SWIFT.
And I do not have a problem with other NATO nations pursuing ng thier own nuclear programs or weapons; I've even said I think a nuclear Poland would be a good regional counter to Russia. Nuclear non-proliferarion is effectively a dead letter, particularly after Obama's stupid deal with Iran.
Consider what would Putin and the rest of Russia's warhawks (as opposed to their western apologists) say about that.
Don't forget Obama-Clinton were also willing to give a similarly stupid deal to Russia.
Consider how Russia (and Iran) acted following such stupidly lenient deals.
This is a bit of a hint what kind of deals should be offered to them in the future.
It doesn't matter if you or I think it was just a rumor; Russia believed it was an agreement made in good faith, even if it was just verbal, feels it was lied to, and no amount of trying to say 'the agreement didn't happen' is going to change that.
Who's Russia? Putin?
For one Gorbachev seems to have no idea.
Of course Russian politicians can claim to believe anything and everything, whatever is most convenient for them. And if they need a grievance to throw back when criticized for militant actions they were going to do regardless for own self-beneficial motivation, well, imagination is the limit.
In real world, there is a fucking reason why even minor international agreements are written on paper, and have both executive and legislative branches of government sign them.
What you are arguing here is that Soviets were such morons that they expected such a significant commitment to apply to the west and be followed through by all future governments of all NATO countries. As if they thought that in the west opposition parties that disagree can in fact win.
And we didn't hear of it for some reason until the odd moment when Putin needed stuff to whine at NATO for.
The alternative explanation is that Russian propagandists have made up the story to justify Russia's aggressive geopolitics in a somewhat plausible way. Isn't it more realistic?
Just like no amount of knowing the 2020 election was stolen is going to get Biden's 'win' reversed at this point. Deal with the world as it is, not as you wish it to be.
Tell that to Russians.
Alternatively, tell the Chinese that they need to start a rumor that some Soviet leader promised them Vladivostok.
Except anyone who can read a topo map and has any military history knowledge knows it's not all bunk.
Both Napoleon and Hitler used the same invasion corridor, and Russia has not forgotten that, and will not leave themselves open to anything like that again, if it is in thier power to prevent.
You don't have to like it, but it's not illogical.
The greater issue with that thinking is that every bloody country can think of some amount of someone else's territories owning which would improve their own security greatly.
What then? Should every nuclear power be excused to act like you are excusing Russia to act?
Should every hypothetical nuclear power become such to follow suit?
What happens when their ambitions collide?
A Belarus type neutrality might be the least worst option, unfortunately, unless Zelenski can strike a bargain with Russia on his own that is different.
LMAO, my point was specifically that Belarus isn't neutral, its a puppet state in all but name. Russian police comes in to suppress protests and Russian military treats the place like their backyard. That's exactly the kind of stuff Ukrainians are fighting to not have.
I know a lot of this is unpleasant to have to contemplete, but we need to face the reality we have, not the reality we wish we had.
Dealing with this sort of foreign powers, letting them know you're willing to be a doormat is exactly what makes the reality unpleasant. Nothing inspires their aggression more than the impression that their enemies are weak and willing to back down at as much as an angry tirade, some saber rattling, and a ridiculous, made up verbal promise from the past.
theconversation.com
