It would invalidate MAD if NATO were to invade in force and start driving tank divisions up on the highway to Moscow and Russia didn't respond, not if they entered into Ukraine by invitation of the local government.
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?
- Thread starter raharris1973
- Start date
It may come as a shock to you, but the world superpower is literally only came into existence two hundred and fifty years ago and both Empires you mentioned no longer exist with their successor states only having bare basic claims to having the Ukraine under there 'influence'
Now you are from Poland, so you have a closer prospective of the the Ukrainian Russian relationship what is your opinion on them joining NATO in detail?
Airedale260
Well-known member
Honestly, at this point I don't think Ukraine actually meets the criteria for NATO membership just yet. So inviting them is kind of a difficult proposition.
Am I in favor of it? Sure. Reason being that it 1) Protects Ukraine, 2) Pisses off Russia, and 3) Keeps the Europeans from actually shooting at one another*
The downside to providing arms to Ukraine is that there's a decent to very good chance that it would get sold to or captured by the Russians, and the kind of gear Ukraine needs is much more advanced than anything we gave the Afghans. So if the Russians got working examples, it's actually a danger to U.S. security because they could develop effective counters.
There are no good answers to this, because getting Ukraine into NATO would take time, and requires every member to sign off it, and I don't trust Germany in particular not to fuck everyone else over.
Meanwhile, Russia's view on Ukraine is that it's the historic heartland of Russian culture, though with the added Russian machismo/inflated sense of importance/Third Rome Syndrome or whatever you want to call it that makes them think they're more impressive than they actually are in terms of culture and history. It would be like if the U.S. suddenly decided we needed to annex the British Isles because of our shared heritage.**
*-If you think the EU is what keeps Europe from ripping itself apart I have a bridge in Brooklyn to sell you.
**-Yes, yes, you can argue that we have a sort of soft control of Britain going on today, only not really because they actually set their own policies -and in fact it was the British who made the case for the AUKUS pact rather than the Americans or Australians.
Am I in favor of it? Sure. Reason being that it 1) Protects Ukraine, 2) Pisses off Russia, and 3) Keeps the Europeans from actually shooting at one another*
The downside to providing arms to Ukraine is that there's a decent to very good chance that it would get sold to or captured by the Russians, and the kind of gear Ukraine needs is much more advanced than anything we gave the Afghans. So if the Russians got working examples, it's actually a danger to U.S. security because they could develop effective counters.
There are no good answers to this, because getting Ukraine into NATO would take time, and requires every member to sign off it, and I don't trust Germany in particular not to fuck everyone else over.
Meanwhile, Russia's view on Ukraine is that it's the historic heartland of Russian culture, though with the added Russian machismo/inflated sense of importance/Third Rome Syndrome or whatever you want to call it that makes them think they're more impressive than they actually are in terms of culture and history. It would be like if the U.S. suddenly decided we needed to annex the British Isles because of our shared heritage.**
*-If you think the EU is what keeps Europe from ripping itself apart I have a bridge in Brooklyn to sell you.
**-Yes, yes, you can argue that we have a sort of soft control of Britain going on today, only not really because they actually set their own policies -and in fact it was the British who made the case for the AUKUS pact rather than the Americans or Australians.
Chiron
Well-known member
1. True, but the military advantage was entirely with the Ukranians if they had but used it competently which they did not.
2. Ukraine had regular training from NATO military missions since the 90s. Apparently as with the Georgians, it was useless.
3. Going by their other forays, not really and being a conscript force, is better suited for the mass warfare between peer competitors that a fight with Ukraine will entail. They did after all crush the Chechs and tamed them while losing far fewer men than the US did in Iraq and Afghanistan fighting and losing to 3rd rate militias less trained and organized than the Chechs. They also spent vastly less money doing so.
4. Maidan was a US orchestrated coup that was illegal. Putin still holds all the cards and has the resources to do what he needs done when and if he chooses.
And that makes it a young world superpower. But going off from that, the local countries with their own history in the region (nevermind Ukrainians themselves) may have a longer going perspective on the matter, and Russia's obviously self interested argument of their natural, inherent, eternal and sacred entitlement to that region may not seem that all that obvious to them. After all, they used to rule most of it mere couple centuries ago themselves, and Russia, considering the later state of things, obviously never respected other's territorial claims nearly as much as it would wish its own claims to be respected, which doesn't seem to have changed much.
Several empires of Europe had to get over losing their much greater "spheres of influence", i don't see why Russia should be special in that regard.
If Ukraine can get its shit together enough to be trusted to not leak shit or otherwise fuck shit up, why not. They want to be in NATO for the very same reason Poland and other former WP countries joined - as a layer of protection from Russia's variable perspective on the sovereignty of countries in that region.
Ukrainian military was in absolute shambles and was a significant force on paper alone.
Not nearly regular and large scale enough to compensate for the fact they never had the funding to do any reasonable training themselves, that is if local corruptocrats didn't sell off the fuel they had.
Ironically, in the end they did crush Chechenya with money, not force. Specifically, by throwing lots of money at one of local strongmen, and letting him administer the money and the region on the basis on his understanding with Putin.
Analysis: Kadyrov's Chechnya Appears Exempt From Russian Funding Cuts
The economic sanctions imposed by Western governments on Russia and plummeting oil prices have necessitated stringent cuts in funding to Russia's constituent subjects. But there is one glaring exception to that trend: The Chechen Republic is seemingly exempt from such belt-tightening.
www.rferl.org
So no, they aren't tamed. They are bribed into contentment through the rest of Russia sponsoring them an upper second world grade lifestyle which they would have never been able to acquire for themselves otherwise. If money stopped flowing, trouble would brew up again very soon.
It is only doable (as you can see from the article, still at a non-insignificant cost) for Russia because Chechenya is really not that big of a region, with population of slightly less than 1.5 million people.
For comparison, DNR and LNR combined have almost 3x as many people, which is why Russia is not eager to just take them in and fund their war recovery, nevermind significantly subsidize whole, over 40 million people country of Ukraine, to keep it from wishfully looking around for a richer patron.
So yeah, for all the talk of how Russia does things different, it also has its own tiny "nation building" mess with an Islamic population, and in relative terms its also a drain on money for them.
Last edited:
Only if such a Ukraine is eventually allowed into the European Union.
Ukraine would have crushed the Donbass separatists in the summer of 2014 if it wasn't for the fresh influx of covert Russian troops to their side, which of course were disguised as a Donbass separatist strategic reserve operating from Russian soil.
Terthna
Professional Lurker
I was not aware; this explains so much.
History Learner
Well-known member
I have feeling if we switched NATO with Iran and Syria with Ukraine, your whole tune would shift on this.
I don't think that Russia would actually be willing to use nukes to prevent NATO bases on Ukrainian soil. But using nukes to protect Russian territory, including Crimea, would of course be quite different. Using nukes to protect the Donbass from NATO as a last resort is an interesting question.
History Learner
Well-known member
In the context of NATO armored divisions there rolling on the border, I have no doubt they would.
"Rolling on the border" meaning exactly which location? Because if they're near the Russo-Ukrainian border, but still on the Ukrainian side, then nuking them would be absolutely suicidal for Russia unless Russia would have actually believed that NATO is about to invade Russia and would thus aim for a nuclear preemptive strike on NATO forces.
raharris1973
Well-known member
What's with the Germans on this? Hysterical pacifism? Business ties that can't stand irritating Russians in the slightest? Both?
Ironic given that Germany would be the European country that would benefit the most from an expansion of the Western sphere of influence deeper into Eastern Europe.
Both, plus major underfunding of their military which they don't want to change.
Wow, i guess in that case we have missed the news of many NATO divisions being nuked in Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania and Poland.
King Arts
Well-known member
Well it’s great you aren’t setting policy then. Because the Russians may very well call your bluff and be willing to go nuclear over western troops on their border with Ukraine just like we were with Soviet nukes in Cuba. Also Germany and other European nations are dependent on Russian gas unless you want to literally give them fuel just for a pissing match with Russia they won’t join in sanctions.
Why not? Why do you think America or the west is the only one willing or has the balls to launch if rivals military was in a neighboring country. Like you’d support doing anything necessary to stop Russians or Chinese stationing troops in Cuba or Mexico. Why don’t you think Russians would do the same as in regards to Ukraine?
49ersfootball
Well-known member
InstaBLOCK!
King Arts
Well-known member
What?
The German military was utterly destroyed by von der Leyen.
They have no choice but to bow to the Russian bear.
"Germany will either be a world power or there will be no Germany." - Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf (1924)
I hate to say this, but Adolf is actually right on this one.
There is no more Germany. There is just a conglomerate of liberal/socialist sheeples called the EU.