Russia(gate/bot) At what rate is NATO planning to invite in Ukraine? If NATO doesn't know, why is negotiating away a neutrality agreement a non-starter?

raharris1973

Well-known member
At what rate is NATO planning to invite in Ukraine? If NATO doesn't know, why is negotiating away a neutrality agreement a non-starter?
 

Aaron Fox

Well-known member
Here's the thing, the moment that NATO sends troops of any (serious) kind over, Russia pulls out the TacNukes and starts using them. It's been part of their nuclear policy since the days of the USSR. Ukraine is still considered Russian Clay, and they will continue to do so.
 

King Arts

Well-known member
Russia is a bad neighbor Europe needs a buffer Ukraine is perfect as the buffer bringing in Ukraine as part of NATO is not good for Europe because then we are next to Russia and an invasion means we have to defend them. Better a neutral independent Ukraine for everyone.
 

Free-Stater 101

Freedom Means Freedom!!!
Nuke Mod
Moderator
Staff Member
Never. Ukraine has been historically an area of Russian influence since its inception and any attempt by them to join NATO will provoke a response before any paperwork is signed. Heck, the entire reason there is a conflict there at present is because they stepped out of line of being a neutral buffer between NATO and Russia by moving towards the EU resulting in the Crimean occupation.
 

Free-Stater 101

Freedom Means Freedom!!!
Nuke Mod
Moderator
Staff Member
Why? All Europe needs to ensure their own safety is nuclear MAD, if attempting to establish or maintain a buffer state increases the risk of war with a nuclear superpower it's objectively making Europe less safe.
Because neither side will allow the other to occupy the country without a war being fought over it. If Ukraine announced tomorrow that they had secretly joined NATO the Russians would invade immediately even if it meant a possibility of war. To them giving it up might as well mean giving up sovereignty.
 

Bassoe

Well-known member
Because neither side will allow the other to occupy the country without a war being fought over it. If Ukraine announced tomorrow that they had secretly joined NATO the Russians would invade immediately even if it meant a possibility of war. To them giving it up might as well mean giving up sovereignty.
I'm gonna be completely honest, if some ROB made me president of France, Prime Minister of England, Chancellor of Germany or some other high-ranking EU position of authority and the Russians bluffed, I'd fold without the slightest hesitation. The potential benefits of "Ukraine as an EU/NATO puppet" don't nearly make up for the potential downsides of "massive numbers of my citizens dying as soldiers in a war which isn't their concern" or "nuclear apocalypse". If the actual EU authority figures don't agree with this assessment, they need to be removed from office immediately as an existential threat to their own people.
 

Free-Stater 101

Freedom Means Freedom!!!
Nuke Mod
Moderator
Staff Member
I'm gonna be completely honest, if some ROB made me president of France, Prime Minister of England, Chancellor of Germany or some other high-ranking EU position of authority and the Russians bluffed, I'd fold without the slightest hesitation. The potential benefits of "Ukraine as an EU/NATO puppet" don't nearly make up for the potential downsides of "massive numbers of my citizens dying as soldiers in a war which isn't their concern" or "nuclear apocalypse". If the actual EU authority figures don't agree with this assessment, they need to be removed from office immediately as an existential threat to their own people.
Forgive me @Bassoe I misread your words and I thought you were 'for' Ukraine attempting to join NATO.
 

Bassoe

Well-known member
No, I simply don't care about Ukraine in any manner save for "will neocons wanting to defend it cause WW3". As I see it, "we go to war to prevent Russia from conquering Ukraine" is an actual threat to us while "Russia conquers Ukraine" is only a threat to the ukrainians and can be safely ignored by all non-ukrainians.
 

LordsFire

Internet Wizard
No, I simply don't care about Ukraine in any manner save for "will neocons wanting to defend it cause WW3". As I see it, "we go to war to prevent Russia from conquering Ukraine" is an actual threat to us while "Russia conquers Ukraine" is only a threat to the ukrainians and can be safely ignored by all non-ukrainians.

Sell the Ukrainians all the guns they want. Load them up to make Russia bleed white if it invades Ukraine. Offer space for Ukrainian refugees if there is a war.

Or just give them back the nukes they gave up in exchange for a guarantee from the West *and* Russia.

But yes. We have no need to go 'boots on the ground' there. Even if Russia wins, so long as they lose blood and treasure doing so, the West wins out, though the Ukrainians do lose.
 

Terthna

Professional Lurker
Sell the Ukrainians all the guns they want. Load them up to make Russia bleed white if it invades Ukraine. Offer space for Ukrainian refugees if there is a war.

Or just give them back the nukes they gave up in exchange for a guarantee from the West *and* Russia.

But yes. We have no need to go 'boots on the ground' there. Even if Russia wins, so long as they lose blood and treasure doing so, the West wins out, though the Ukrainians do lose.
Which in retrospect may have been the plan all along when we backed that coup; to force Russia into a conflict that will weaken them.
 

Chiron

Well-known member
Sell the Ukrainians all the guns they want. Load them up to make Russia bleed white if it invades Ukraine. Offer space for Ukrainian refugees if there is a war.

Or just give them back the nukes they gave up in exchange for a guarantee from the West *and* Russia.

But yes. We have no need to go 'boots on the ground' there. Even if Russia wins, so long as they lose blood and treasure doing so, the West wins out, though the Ukrainians do lose.

The Ukrainians will fold like a cheap suit. They got fought to a standstill by an ISIS grade force that just happened to have an effective Air Defense Force that removed the UAF from the equation. Even without air power it should have been an easy win for Ukraine, but US training was worthless without the air power to make it work. They also fell apart in Crimea after just a 100 small arms rounds fired.

If hit by the actual combined arms Russian Army, they will melt fast.

They are a lost cause not worth the money. Tell them to go to pimp daddy Putin and cut a deal. Then slap sense into EU leaders and tell them to get their shit together and rebuild their militaries for mass warfare.
 

GoldRanger

May the power protect you
Founder
Here's the thing, the moment that NATO sends troops of any (serious) kind over, Russia pulls out the TacNukes and starts using them. It's been part of their nuclear policy since the days of the USSR. Ukraine is still considered Russian Clay, and they will continue to do so.
You're delusional if you think Russia is going to throw around nukes that easily.
 

Aaron Fox

Well-known member
You're delusional if you think Russia is going to throw around nukes that easily.
It's literally outlined in their nuclear policy. Basically, it's a variation of France's 'get to the border of France, get nuked' nuclear policy, just with the added 'bonus' of a lot of Eastern Europe still considered by its population as Russian Territory... which includes Ukraine. All borne from a very historical paranoia of getting invaded.

Given who is in charge (basically a lot of the KGB), it is very likely that Russia will nuke a NATO formation to tell NATO to stay out of it. Remember, Russia (and their predecessors, the Soviet Union) don't see WMDs the same way as the West sees them. To Russia, nukes are just one more rung in the war escalation ladder.
 

GoldRanger

May the power protect you
Founder
It's literally outlined in their nuclear policy.
Which is completely meaningless, as virtually no country follows its own military policies and procedures to the letter. In practice the Russians are not stupid enough to throw away their nation, and most importantly, the oligarchs are not stupid enough to throw away their milking cow, for fucking Ukraine.

Given who is in charge (basically a lot of the KGB), it is very likely that Russia will nuke a NATO formation to tell NATO to stay out of it. Remember, Russia (and their predecessors, the Soviet Union) don't see WMDs the same way as the West sees them. To Russia, nukes are just one more rung in the war escalation ladder.
It's not only unlikely, it's guaranteed they won't escalate in this way, since they know it'll invite retaliation in kind, and thus the slippery road towards MAD begins. There's procedures and books, and there's reality.

At most they'll invade Ukraine. At the absolute most. That would be more than adequate to send a message. I don't even think they'll have the balls to bomb NATO forces conventionally over this, much less be the first country to break out nukes since WWII.
 

Aaron Fox

Well-known member
Which is completely meaningless, as virtually no country follows its own military policies and procedures to the letter. In practice the Russians are not stupid enough to throw away their nation, and most importantly, the oligarchs are not stupid enough to throw away their milking cow, for fucking Ukraine.
It isn't unless one wants to completely invalidate MAD, which is a geopolitical divide by zero event (much like how the US defaulting is an economic divide by zero event).
 

49ersfootball

Well-known member
Russia is a bad neighbor Europe needs a buffer Ukraine is perfect as the buffer bringing in Ukraine as part of NATO is not good for Europe because then we are next to Russia and an invasion means we have to defend them. Better a neutral independent Ukraine for everyone.
I would let Ukraine join NATO effective immediately & tell Putin to SHUT THE **** UP!

Plus apply massive economic sanctions on Russia.
 

Marduk

Well-known member
Moderator
Staff Member
At what rate is NATO planning to invite in Ukraine? If NATO doesn't know, why is negotiating away a neutrality agreement a non-starter?
Because open options are a maneuver space.
Also because the last time Ukraine was protected by an agreement with Russia, we know what happened.
Never. Ukraine has been historically an area of Russian influence since its inception and any attempt by them to join NATO will provoke a response before any paperwork is signed. Heck, the entire reason there is a conflict there at present is because they stepped out of line of being a neutral buffer between NATO and Russia by moving towards the EU resulting in the Crimean occupation.
Ukraine never was a "neutral buffer between NATO and Russia". Ukraine was a satrapy under Russian management. There was nothing neutral about it.
And it was "historically" an area of Russian influence only if your definition of history is quite specifically "about 230 years". Because before then most of modern day Ukraine's territory was Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth or Ottoman.
Here's the thing, the moment that NATO sends troops of any (serious) kind over, Russia pulls out the TacNukes and starts using them. It's been part of their nuclear policy since the days of the USSR. Ukraine is still considered Russian Clay, and they will continue to do so.
Russians would be both dumb and insane to try go limited nuclear war, and on territory that is supposed to be their own at that.
It would be insane due to the escalation risk.
It would also be incredibly dumb because on the slight risk that the western leaders coldly play out this move to own benefit, Russia earns a very pyrrhic victory - the west also retaliates with lesser, but more accurate deescalating tac nuke strikes on enemy formations in Ukraine, and then withdraws magnanimously. Let Russia have their nuclear wasteland buffer zone while dealing with the loss of some tens of thousands of troops politically.
Congratulations, the Russian government took a dangerous hit to own stability and economy for the sake of gaining some now mostly PITA territory.
Russia is a bad neighbor Europe needs a buffer Ukraine is perfect as the buffer bringing in Ukraine as part of NATO is not good for Europe because then we are next to Russia and an invasion means we have to defend them. Better a neutral independent Ukraine for everyone.
The problem with Ukraine being a buffer is that there is no buffer in the north anyway, and Russia is disturbingly unwilling to give up the Kaliningrad Enclave for the cause of there being buffers.
It's literally outlined in their nuclear policy. Basically, it's a variation of France's 'get to the border of France, get nuked' nuclear policy, just with the added 'bonus' of a lot of Eastern Europe still considered by its population as Russian Territory... which includes Ukraine. All borne from a very historical paranoia of getting invaded.

Given who is in charge (basically a lot of the KGB), it is very likely that Russia will nuke a NATO formation to tell NATO to stay out of it. Remember, Russia (and their predecessors, the Soviet Union) don't see WMDs the same way as the West sees them. To Russia, nukes are just one more rung in the war escalation ladder.
As i've mentioned in other threads, the paranoia is played up for perfectly rational and utilitarian reasons. Namely, the concessions westerners are willing to give Russia for the sake of alleviating any paranoia real or acted, as seen here. Acting paranoid costs nothing. Getting something for free is a great deal, so of course Russia is taking it, it needs every penny it can get. Russia is currently run by a clique of ex-intel people after all. They have mastered deception as an art, of course they are using one of their top competences at every opportunity.

It shows very clearly in the kind of conflicts they take part in. They avoid open and clear military conflicts like fire. If they do get into one, its "hybrid" ones, proxy wars, covert operations with plausible deniability preferably, and if their military forces do something officially they make sure that they can arrange good PR cover for it; if they have to do something dodgy, its "little green men" or Wagner Group. They are clearly playing to their strengths at every opportunity, and going into straight out open warfare would be the opposite.
The Ukrainians will fold like a cheap suit. They got fought to a standstill by an ISIS grade force that just happened to have an effective Air Defense Force that removed the UAF from the equation.
That's a poor comparison. Its not just the separatist air defense that had expert help from Russia.
Even without air power it should have been an easy win for Ukraine, but US training was worthless without the air power to make it work. They also fell apart in Crimea after just a 100 small arms rounds fired.
Umm, that was before any western military assistance. The trial by fire in the civil war is something that naturally made Ukrainian military far more serious than the wreck it before.
If hit by the actual combined arms Russian Army, they will melt fast.
Probably. But Russians will take meaningful losses.
They are a lost cause not worth the money. Tell them to go to pimp daddy Putin and cut a deal. Then slap sense into EU leaders and tell them to get their shit together and rebuild their militaries for mass warfare.
That was the beginning of the whole conflict. Daddy Putin was low on money to begin with, and that problem got only worse since them. So he skimped on keeping the puppet state happy. Maidan ensued.
 
Last edited:

Users who are viewing this thread

Top