Russia has a much longer history that WW2, all of it says that allowing foreign militaries on its door steps leads nowhere good.
Exactly. Russia has a long, long history of attacking the countries it borders. Repeatedly. Anyone who has taken IR 101 could see that these countries would attempt to protect themselves from future attacks. Russia is afraid of the west, but not much else. Therefore you align with the west.
I think you have a poor understanding of what Russia will and will not accept.
I would also appreciate you acknowledging that Russia's moves in Ukraine have been naked and illegal acts of aggression. Can you admit this?
the chinese are on their doorstep fu
oh wait they are already past the back door
Given that Russia's acts are illegal under international law and nakedly aggressive, who is it that has a poor understanding of what Russia will and will not accept?
I think it's pretty clear that it will not accept NATO in Ukraine.
Funny thing is that Russia has taught all it's neighbors that having Russia on your door steps leads nowhere good.
That's absurd. Violating international law and risking a war with the west are two very different things. It is abundantly clear that in the end Russia has no choice but to accept Ukraine in NATO if the west wants it there. As I have said before, Russian actions now make ukranian NATO membership more likely.
My guess is that Russia already views Ukraine as lost and is now attempting to get as much as it can before the situation becomes irretrievable.
Wanting Ukraine there is not enough, NATO will have to be ready to fight a hot, possibly nuclear, war with Russia.
That is true. But Russia, like any other country, will act only in its own strategic interest, not that of its neighbors.
That's definitely completely wrong. Please provide any credible source that says that Russia is willing to fight a nuclear war over ukraine's NATO membership.
That is just absolute, hilarious nonsense.
Is this an attempt to fit this crisis into a realist or neorealist framework? Give me a break.
If you want to try and use one of those theories though, please outline exactly what you think Russia's strategic interest is here and why fighting a nuclear war over ukranian membership in NATO is in their strategic interest. Be specific.
Russia's military doctrine allows for use of tactical nuclear weapons in conventional war. So if there is a hot conventional war between NATO and Russia, there is a possibility it will turn nuclear.
Russia's strategic interest is to not allow a foreign military alliance, namely NATO, in Ukraine.
Fighting a nuclear war over Ukraine is not in their strategic interest, but if there is a conventional war in Ukraine and Russia feels like it's losing, it could use tactical nuclear weapons. If there is a hot war between NATO and Russia, all bets are off. This is an apocalypse scenario that everyone in their right mind focused on avoiding during the Cold War, for a very good reason.
Russia's military doctrine allows for use of tactical nuclear weapons in conventional war. So if there is a hot conventional war between NATO and Russia, there is a possibility it will turn nuclear.
practicly a oxymoron
more or less even the use of nuclear weapons de facto is the start of nuclear war
nuclear weapons are considered strategic weapons
do that and we might get to have the fun of metro 2033 for real
they would have no precedent and even china and india would fully sanction the muscovites
Now you're making contradictory statements. If Russia is doing what is in their strategic interest as you claim, we have no worry about a nuclear war over Ukraine, as per your own other statements.
Now you're making contradictory statements. If Russia is doing what is in their strategic interest as you claim, we have no worry about a nuclear war over Ukraine, as per your own other statements.
he seems upset over how his properganda has tripped and now lays flat so he is making sensasionalist claims to try to improve the ego of him and the muscovites and putin as well as try to strike fear
A person who eats more than he needs robs the country and robs Putin
It looks to me like Russia will intervene in Ukraine to stop NATO from expanding there. It's following the Georgia plan now. Start some separatist stuff, force the Ukrainians to react, then invade under pretext of "peacekeeping."
That's my interpretation. You can have your own, maybe they are just practicing for VE day parade.
But given my interpretation, if Russia does intervene militarily in Ukraine, and NATO decides to start a conventional war with Russia over it, it could escalate to a nuclear war. If you want to convince yourself that a hot war between a nuclear NATO and a nuclear Russia can't turn nuclear, you most certainly are free to do so.
Exactly.
Russian has dozens of targets it must destroy in a nuclear war. "The West" has but one target, Moscow. The only certainty in a nuclear war is Russia loses.
A nuclear weapon has not been used in warfare since the two dropped on Japan almost 70 years ago. Chances one is used over the sovereignty rights of nations bordering Russia is between slim & none, and my money is on none. Remember when the guiding principle to rationalize the situation was that the people living in an area deserve the right to self-determination?
This thread's progression has been a line of rationalizations, a new one popping up every time the previous one is debunked.
Russia has a much longer history that WW2, all of it says that allowing foreign militaries on its door steps leads nowhere good.
Crimean Tatar deportation is ancient history. The fantasy is thinking that Russia will just allow NATO in Ukraine.
Graham, who served as President George W. Bush’s special assistant and National Security Council’s senior director for Russia from 2004 to 2007, is concerned by what he sees as the US failure to get Russia right.
“It is our problem as a policymaking establishment that we cannot understand how the other side looks at the world,” Graham said. “We think, ‘how can Russia be opposed to prosperous, democratic societies on its borders?’ We do not understand why they consider such moves to be against them.”
The US miscalculated the degree of extreme anti-Russian sentiment in Ukraine’s Maidan demonstrations, Graham says, and therefore did not understand or prepare for the Russian response. But Moscow’s anger at Ukraine’s rapprochement with the West was less about expansionism and more about security.
“Putin does not want responsibility for the socio-economic development [of Ukraine],” Graham said. “He just wants some assurances that it will not become part of an organization that is overtly hostile to Russia.”
Guaranteeing that Ukraine will not be absorbed into NATO should be a no-brainer, according to Anatol Lieven, a war studies professor at King's College London and a senior fellow at the New America Foundation.
“Such a promise is politically difficult for the West, but in moral and practical terms should be extremely welcome,” he wrote last month in an essay that circulated among Russia specialists. “The USA and its allies have now demonstrated … that there are no circumstances in which they will go to war in the lands of the former Soviet Union. To offer NATO membership to Ukraine is therefore the worst kind of strategic and moral irresponsibility.”
But instead, the US and its allies forged ahead with NATO expansion, which destroyed Russia’s faith in a less antagonistic future with its former foes.
“They do not think we respect them,” Graham said.
Jack Matlock, a former US ambassador to Moscow, agrees. Matlock was in Russia during the chaotic period when the Soviet Union was dissolving. Like Bush’s former special assistant, Matlock thinks the US could have done a better job at creating a connection with Moscow.
The expansion of NATO under Presidents Bill Clinton and George W. Bush were the equivalent of “a swift kick to the groin” for Russia, he wrote in The Washington Post last month.
Tensions are so high at this point that anything could happen.
“We do not know how this is going to play out,” Graham said. “No one really controls the forces. If there is widespread violence in eastern Ukraine, Putin can’t not send forces in. But if troops move across the border, what will the West’s response be? Sanctions aren’t going to do it.”
US Secretary of State John Kerry is conferring with European allies about imposing stiffer penalties on sectors of the Russian economy.
This might have some effect. Standard & Poor’s ratings agency has already downgraded Russia's credit to just a step above junk.
But neither Washington nor Europe is prepared to sacrifice its own interests to penalize Russia.
“Right now they are desperately looking for sanctions that make them appear to be doing something but don’t really cost them anything,” Graham said.
If armed conflict breaks out between Russia and Ukraine, however, the stakes would rise in a hurry.
“We may have to provide lethal aid to Ukrainian troops,” Graham said. “It is not difficult to spin out a scenario where things could get really nasty.”