[HN Gopher] Chernobyl power plant captured by Russian forces
___________________________________________________________________
Chernobyl power plant captured by Russian forces
Author : tosh
Score : 343 points
Date : 2022-02-24 18:23 UTC (4 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (www.reuters.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (www.reuters.com)
| jsiaajdsdaa wrote:
| ascii_pasta wrote:
| It seem like maybe Ukraine should have kept theirs...
| yabones wrote:
| Do you really understand the implications of that statement?
| Miner49er wrote:
| Maybe OP is a Posadist.
| jazzyjackson wrote:
| Thanks for the rabbithole history lesson, reminds me of
| Bannon's "deconstruct the state" angle, an optimism that
| somehow things can improve after everything is destroyed...
| moffkalast wrote:
| We had a good run. Time for some small reptiles to try their
| hand at civilization next.
| Bud wrote:
| Unclear to me why Reuters articles seem officially blessed on HN
| in the face of superior reporting from NYT or WaPo, etc.
|
| I guess the original reason for preferring Reuters or AP was,
| avoiding a paywall, but now of course, Reuters has a paywall.
|
| So I would opine that the traditional flagging/downvoting of NYT
| links for this kind of story, in favor of Reuters, should cease.
| charliea0 wrote:
| The Russian forces seem to be trying to encircle or assault Kyiv.
|
| I think they've taken the nuclear plant because it is a
| defensible point along their shortest line of advance. They
| wouldn't want to move past it without controlling the site.
| davidzweig wrote:
| It appears there are two bridges across the pripyat river in
| the vicinity, next crossing is nearly 100km south inside Kiev
| city.
| bayesian_horse wrote:
| I think they seized it because they need the general area to
| move their troops. In that case they can't tolerate Ukrainian
| troops there, but somebody has to be in control and responsible
| for this site to ensure, among other things, no terrorists make
| off with radioactive material.
|
| I'm totally condemning the Russian actions, but in this
| particular case they may be acting somewhat responsibly. Unlike
| with the bombing of civilians or the whole damn war in the
| first place!
| rad_gruchalski wrote:
| > but somebody has to be in control and responsible for this
| site to ensure, among other things, no terrorists make off
| with radioactive material
|
| Please... Russians will just use it for their propaganda as a
| support to the claim that Ukraine was working on nuclear
| weapons.
| drekipus wrote:
| > Unlike with the bombing of civilians or the whole damn war
| in the first place!
|
| Has this happened? Ukrainian civilians bombed?
| toyg wrote:
| Never believe anybody who says attacks are "surgical" or
| "limited to strategic objectives" - bombs and shrapnels
| don't look at documents. War is war, civilian casualties
| are always inevitable. That doesn't mean we shouldn't try
| to keep their numbers down, of course - in fact, it means
| war should never be waged, because innocents will always be
| caught in it.
| dragontamer wrote:
| Some Ukrainian Hospitals have been struck by artillery. No
| one knows if it was on purpose or not, but either way
| that's pretty bad since the world is still suffering from
| the COVID19 pandemic.
| anothernewdude wrote:
| The Russian Hospital seeking missiles are famous since
| Syria.
| sofixa wrote:
| Yep, multiple cities, including Kyiv, Mariupol, Odessa,
| Lviv were bombed, and there's videos out there of civilian
| buildings destroyed.
| herpderperator wrote:
| Yes. A cyclist can be seen going about their life before a
| bomb lands in front of them. The proximity would have sent
| shrapnel directly into them. They did not survive. It is
| extremely sad and awful to watch unfold. Warning: the
| second video contains gore.
| https://twitter.com/realistqx1/status/1496757503195029508
| and https://twitter.com/zyundex/status/1496735074720563203
| matmatmatmat wrote:
| Whether deliberately or not, yes.
| odiroot wrote:
| Or they just want to cut power supply to the Ukraine capital.
| Occam's razor.
| smsm42 wrote:
| The station has been shut down since 2000. There's no power
| supply there.
| Arrath wrote:
| Could it still be an important part of the distribution
| network? Lines, substations, etc.
| epolanski wrote:
| It's simply the shortest and simplest path from Belarus
| to Kiev. It has strategic military value.
| garaetjjte wrote:
| Chernobyl power plant isn't operational since 2000.
| bjtitus wrote:
| Is any part of Chernobyl still in operation? It seems like
| everything was shut down by 2000 (https://en.wikipedia.org/
| wiki/Chernobyl_Nuclear_Power_Plant).
| odiroot wrote:
| I stand corrected then!
| nine_k wrote:
| Also, either side would be pretty reluctant to bomb it, or
| otherwise battle too hard close to it. It's a great position to
| hold if you can.
| giantg2 wrote:
| They probably don't want to damage the structure itself, but
| the exclusion zone around it is quite large with little risk
| of collateral damage (possibly easier to engage).
| BuyMyBitcoins wrote:
| There is a lot of contamination that was simply buried
| underneath the topsoil during the cleanup efforts. Bombing
| or artillery strikes would likely cause some of that to be
| kicked back up into the atmosphere.
| hutzlibu wrote:
| "It's a great position to hold if you can."
|
| It is a great position to hold and fight in, because the area
| is pretty empty of civilians. And russia must avoid ukranian
| (russian in their eyes) civilian casualties, to not loose the
| little popular support they have for this war.
|
| And neither side will be so stupid to directly bomb the
| remains of the reactor, but I think it would need a serious
| direct bombing, for radiation to leak out. I don't think
| there can be still a major uncontrolled chain reaction. The
| worst that can happen under normal circumstances, is
| radiation leaking out.
|
| (but all this is from the back of my head knowledge, about
| documentaries about chernobyl, I might be wrong)
| celticninja wrote:
| I don't think Putin is worried about loss of life of
| Ukrainian citizens. He is worried about losing soldiers, or
| more importantly dead soldiers being repatriated on the
| news. They will cover up civilian casualties or blame them
| on Ukrainian troops. The only support for this will come
| from Russia domestically and it is that which he seeks to
| maintain with this war. Which I'm guessing he hoped would
| be quick and decisive, avoiding the bloodshed of Russian
| soldiers that will be his undoing at home.
| csee wrote:
| He should be worried about catastrophic losses like that,
| it'd be a propaganda coup against him. Small scale
| killings can be swept under the rug though.
| drekipus wrote:
| This isn't the US in Iraq, we're talking about Russia and
| Ukraine here
| csee wrote:
| Russia still has social media. A catastrophic loss of
| Ukranian civilians in one event won't get buried easily.
| beaconstudios wrote:
| However, as an autocratic state, I wouldn't be surprised
| if Russian social media was shut down if it was used to
| spread messages contrary to state propaganda.
| hutzlibu wrote:
| "I don't think Putin is worried about loss of life of
| Ukrainian citizens."
|
| Then he would just shell and flatten all the ukrainian
| cities. Russia has air superiority as far as I know.
| EugeneOZ wrote:
| Putin just wants to create another puppet-state, same as
| Belarus. He absolutely doesn't care about the lives of
| civilians, but ruining the infrastructure is not in his
| plans (only strategical infrastructure)
| selfhoster11 wrote:
| Every city he doesn't shell, is a city he doesn't have to
| rebuild. Roads and other pieces of infrastructure are
| valuable, no matter how old.
| hutzlibu wrote:
| And every ukrainian with family ties to russias heartland
| that not dies, is one family less to worry about
| politically.
| anothernewdude wrote:
| Then their bombing of hospitals was a bit silly
| bayesian_horse wrote:
| The issue is not about bombing or not bombing it, also the
| area is worthless from a strategic point of view.
|
| It's just that somebody has to be in control of it, and the
| Russians can't or don't want to depend on Ukrainian forces
| to do that right now.
| smsm42 wrote:
| Also because it's very dangerous to attack a place where
| there's a lot of radioactive waste being stored. And if things
| go really bad, you can always pull off a "insane Ukrainians
| just shelled the power plant and broke nuclear containment" -
| if Russians can't have Kiev, nobody will have it.
| yread wrote:
| > An official familiar with current assessments said Russian
| shelling hit a radioactive waste repository at Chernobyl, and
| an increase in radiation levels was reported. The increase
| could not be immediately corroborated.
|
| You mean like this?
|
| https://apnews.com/article/ukraine-chernobyl-russia-
| invasion...
| scyzoryk_xyz wrote:
| Also a great news bullet point in the information war. "Russian
| forces taking Chernobyl" sounds much more familiar and much
| more terrifying than "Russian forces taking Chernihiv region"
| to all of us unfamiliar with the country. Even if strategically
| realistically it's the latter that is more important than the
| former.
| godmode2019 wrote:
| It also has the following affect: """Don't the Russians
| already own Chernobyl? I guess it must not be in Russia. I
| saw a movie and I think they were speaking Russian. Wow they
| must be crazy actually entering a radiation zone, won't half
| of the troops die from exposure. I wouldn't want my son
| fighting those lunatics."""
| gutitout wrote:
| A lot of people there do speak Russian there. And yes it's
| still radioactive, albeit less than a few decades ago. If
| you're sending your son to fight, radiation probably the
| last thing to kill him.
| giantg2 wrote:
| I think it would be crazy for another reason - there is
| very little in that area that could be collateral damage,
| and there's not really anyone who is supposed to be in
| there. This should make it very easy to target forces in
| the exclusion zone.
| squarefoot wrote:
| > The Russian forces seem to be trying to encircle or assault
| Kyiv.
|
| Yes, but although Putin is a bloody bastard, he's not stupid.
| His plan isn't to take entire control of Ukraine militarily but
| to swap the legit government with a puppet one he would control
| at will. Once he succeed, which is a matter of a few days,
| he'll gradually withdraw most of the forces, things will slowly
| return to normal and in a few years Ukraine will essentially
| (if not effectively) annex itself to Russia, with both the EU
| and US doing nothing but economic sanctions Putin and the
| oligarchs were long prepared against. Most of Europe depends on
| Russian gas, which means the moment those sanctions become too
| harsh is the moment he'll either cut our supply or further
| raise the prices (my last heating bill already doubled). That's
| his guarantee against any real action. I'm sorry, but Ukrainian
| people are screwed.
| pkulak wrote:
| Holy crap, Europe needs to get off natural gas yesterday.
| krzat wrote:
| Shutting down atomic power in Germany was such a brilliant
| move.
| toomuchtodo wrote:
| > Shutting down atomic power in Germany was such a
| brilliant move.
|
| What's done is done. Europe has enough wind potential to
| power the world [1]. Add solar [2], batteries,
| transmission, pumped hydro, remaining operational
| nuclear, and electrify everything (EVs, heat pumps, etc).
| Fill the remainder with LNG shipments from the US in the
| short term [3]. It's a national
| defense/security/sovereignty issue now to get off of
| Russian gas, and it should be treated as such with
| regards to allocation of resources to speed the effort.
|
| [1] https://www.eea.europa.eu/publications/europes-
| onshore-and-o...
|
| [2] https://www.euractiv.com/section/energy/news/solar-
| seen-clai...
|
| [3] https://www.reuters.com/business/energy/europe-
| remains-top-d...
| polotics wrote:
| Europe does not have enough wind power potential to power
| the world, by a very large margin. To power France with
| wind, not just electricity but all energy needs including
| oil, natgas, etc... you would need one large windmill for
| every single square kilometer of the country...
| toomuchtodo wrote:
| Research paper with data to provide a citation for my
| assertion: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/
| abs/pii/S03014... |
| https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2019.06.064
|
| I confirmed it's in SciHub if you want to grab a copy.
|
| > The continuous development of onshore wind farms is an
| important feature of the European transition towards an
| energy system powered by distributed renewables and low-
| carbon resources. This study assesses and simulates
| potential for future onshore wind turbine installations
| throughout Europe. The study depicts, via maps, all the
| national and regional socio-technical restrictions and
| regulations for wind project development using spatial
| analysis conducted through GIS. The inputs for the
| analyses were based on an original dataset compiled from
| satellites and public databases relating to electricity,
| planning, and other dimensions. Taking into consideration
| socio-technical constraints, which restricts 54% of the
| combined land area in Europe, the study reveals a
| nameplate capacity of 52.5 TW of untapped onshore wind
| power potential in Europe - equivalent to 1 MW per 16
| European citizens - a supply that would be sufficient to
| cover the global all-sector energy demand from now
| through to 2050. The study offers a more rigorous, multi-
| dimensional, and granular atlas of onshore wind energy
| development that can assist with future energy policy,
| research, and planning.
| heurisko wrote:
| I was/am pro-energy transition.
|
| But it's obvious that it was too fast too soon.
| Capability should have been built up before
| decommissioning.
| throwaway894345 wrote:
| Yeah, this has been my frustration for a while. Honestly,
| at this point just buy natural gas from a country that
| isn't helmed by a warlord. Similarly, Germany
| decommissioning its nuclear reactors isn't helping matters.
| I genuinely wonder what short term solutions are feasible
| with respect to decreasing dependence on Russian gas--can
| Europe ramp up production of heat pumps or similar? Is
| "Norway expanding its natural gas capacity" a reasonable
| short term option? Would love to hear from people who know
| anything about this.
| labster wrote:
| As a disgruntled climate scientist, I think Europe needs to
| get off natural gas by 1990. It's not as if the security
| benefits weren't obvious when we all were buying from the
| Arab world, or the wider global security destabilization
| caused by climate change.
| pasabagi wrote:
| The cancellation of the NS2 pipeline has been a silver
| lining, even if it's hard to compare the long-term quanta
| of brutality a given amount of CO2 leads to vs the short
| term brutality of war.
| selfhoster11 wrote:
| Everyone who had eyes and was watching the natural gas
| situation in Germany and other countries to the east of it,
| would see that even a few years ago.
| tlear wrote:
| You missed the step where he needs to brutalize population
| into submission. This will take time and mountains of
| corpses. He can't just put a puppet there and call it a day.
| Puppet will be dead by week after. No he has to occupy the
| country and crush the opposition.
| toyg wrote:
| Gas is important, but what is more important is the nuclear
| arsenal.
|
| The US, China, Russia, Israel, India, Pakistan, and North
| Korea, are effectively untouchable by conventional military
| means, because they are able and _willing_ to unleash nuclear
| holocaust in return - no matter what they do.
| beecafe wrote:
| It's not clear that the West is willing.
| sofixa wrote:
| > His plan isn't to take entire control of Ukraine militarily
| but to swap the legit government with a puppet one he would
| control at will. Once he succeed, which is a matter of a few
| days,he'll gradually withdraw most of the forces, things will
| slowly return to normal and in a few years Ukraine will
| essentially (if not effectively) annex itself to Russia
|
| I wouldn't be so certain. I don't think Ukrainians would just
| comply, many of them would fight against such a thing and
| would know the new regime is fake. Furthermore, Kyiv is a big
| city with peculiar geography. Urban fighting is hell, and if
| Ukraine decides to make a principled stand there it could
| take weeks of bloody fighting before it falls; and if
| Ukraine's government evacuates to Lviv in time, and continues
| the fight from there, it might result in a long struggle,
| regardless of who gets installed in Kyiv by Putin.
|
| Oh and we don't know how the Russian public will react if the
| war gets to an urban bloodbath going for weeks or months.
| sterlind wrote:
| what if Russia used chemical weapons? doesn't hurt physical
| infrastructure, provokes shock and fear, kills or
| incapacitates a lot of people, denies tons of area to the
| Ukrainians.
|
| I'm not sure Russia has much left to lose politically by
| stooping to that.
| throwaway894345 wrote:
| Genuine question: how much does Russian public opinion
| matter? It's not like Russia has free elections. Iran's
| Islamic Republic seems pretty secure despite low public
| approval. I'm sure public opinion is important, but I don't
| understand its role in a dictatorship.
| risyachka wrote:
| Though he is not stupid, he can't think clearly. Can't even
| control his rage as seen from last interviews.
| RC_ITR wrote:
| That's such a straightforward narrative, but then why has no
| major power ever been able to annex and occupy an unwilling
| nation before?
|
| Everywhere Russia has taken to date was already a separatist
| region, but I'm really racking my brain to think of times
| when a country 'just simply annexed' another area by force
| since the fall of the Raj.
| bombcar wrote:
| Tibet?
| RC_ITR wrote:
| Tibet was under control of the Qing Dynasty (i.e. China)
| until its end in 1912.
|
| From 1912-1950, Tibet (due to its remoteness) acted as an
| _de facto_ independent region, despite Western legal
| precedent stating it was still under the control of
| Beijing.
|
| When attempting to get _de jure_ independence from China
| in 1951, China asserted control over the region.
|
| So sort of, but not really.
| alisonatwork wrote:
| There are a few. Off the top of my head Tibet and Western
| Sahara come to mind. Perhaps some parts of now-Israel.
| RC_ITR wrote:
| Western Sahara has a population similar to Huntsville
| Alabama's metro region, so I guess you are right, but I
| hope you also see why that situation is very different
| from this one.
|
| As for Tibet, repeating an earlier comment:
|
| _Tibet was under control of the Qing Dynasty (i.e.
| China) until its end in 1912. From 1912-1950, Tibet (due
| to its remoteness) acted as an de facto independent
| region, despite Western legal precedent stating it was
| still under the control of Beijing.
|
| When attempting to get de jure independence from China in
| 1951, China asserted control over the region.
|
| So sort of, but not really._
| brimble wrote:
| Yeah, having trouble thinking of one since '57. Examples
| abound from the first half of the 20th century (and
| certainly before then), but less so in the latter half.
|
| Smaller states, though, yes. But not major powers. This
| _may_ have more to do with shifting priorities for major
| powers, than with anything else.
| drekipus wrote:
| Hong Kong?
| RC_ITR wrote:
| that was a 99 year lease expiring.
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Convention_for_the_Extensio
| n_o...
| throw10920 wrote:
| ...the Sino-British Joint Declaration is still in effect,
| until 2047.
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sino-
| British_Joint_Declaration
| vijayr02 wrote:
| Annexation of Goa [0]
|
| [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Annexation_of_Goa
|
| edit: my bad, I missed the "unwilling nation" part of the
| parent content
| seattle_spring wrote:
| The next iteration of S.T.A.L.K.E R. is going to be nuts.
| throwoutway wrote:
| It is worth remembering that the Chernobyl sarcophagus was paid
| for by the EU. Not sure if that makes it EU property though
| thesaintlives wrote:
| Yes! Well worth remembering. Get your best pen out and write a
| complaint letter to President Putin. For sure it will stop the
| invasion dead in its tracks. Genius!
| agilob wrote:
| EU also paid to build a city in what used to be Palestine, and
| before anyone moved in Israel demolished it all. No one even
| talked about it for more than a day
|
| > 319 Palestinian owned structures were demolished or seized,
| and 447 people (including 222 children) were displaced. Of the
| structures targeted in the six-month reporting period, 62
| structures were funded by the EU or EU Member States with a
| value of nearly EUR 391,406.
|
| https://eeas.europa.eu/sites/default/files/20200528_final_si...
| rhn_mk1 wrote:
| What city? Can you post sources?
| agilob wrote:
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israeli_demolition_of_Palesti
| n...
|
| https://eeas.europa.eu/sites/default/files/20200528_final_s
| i...
| gjsman-1000 wrote:
| Well, Russia will appreciate the gift. "Thanks for cleaning up
| the mess for us before we invaded."
| mtmail wrote:
| Let by G7 but many other countries contributed
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chernobyl_Shelter_Fund
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chernobyl_New_Safe_Confinement
| docdeek wrote:
| Not an expert but I would doubt it. Most every part of the EU
| has signs at testing to the fact that X (a road, a bridge, a
| building) was paid for by EU funds.
| tekno45 wrote:
| not a lot of people to look at signs in the literal middle of
| a nuclear exclusion zone.
| adamredwoods wrote:
| If it protects EU, then the EU has a stake in it:
|
| >> Russia wants to control the Chernobyl nuclear reactor to
| signal NATO not to interfere militarily, the same source said.
| [deleted]
| outside1234 wrote:
| Hey, good news people, Switzerland is going to remain neutral and
| keep taking Russian money.
|
| And Germany doesn't want to stop Swift because they need sweet
| sweet natural gas from Russia
| jjtheblunt wrote:
| is there a citation for what you wrote?
|
| I thought I read the exact opposite of both your sentences some
| hours ago. perhaps things changed again?
| sbmthakur wrote:
| https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/feb/24/kyiv-
| furious-a...
| hwers wrote:
| I can't really tell what's going on here. Is the EU and America
| supposed to be helping out but it's all promises without real
| counter attacks? Is this just the calm before the storm as russia
| places their troops in the right spots while everyone looks on?
| Anyone who's smarter than me who could enlighten me?
| arisAlexis wrote:
| What do you want them to do exactly, send nukes?
| qbasic_forever wrote:
| There are plenty of sanctions the US and EU can impose on
| Russian oil and gas, but they aren't doing it.
| bombcar wrote:
| Which tells you everything you need to know about how this
| is going down.
| gpm wrote:
| The EU and America have been clear throughout that they will
| not be putting troops on the ground or directly fighting Russia
| in response to an invasion of Ukraine. No one is willing to
| risk a nuclear war.
|
| The calm before the storm as Russia places their troops was the
| last few months. This is the storm, as Russia takes Ukraine by
| force. Assuming they succeed in taking it (which seems very
| likely) it's unclear what they plan to do - either installing a
| puppet government or incorporating Ukraine into Russia (or a
| mix of the two) seems most likely.
|
| The EU and America (and other friends) have promised severe
| sanctions on Russia in response to this - which they are
| currently announcing, and they will probably continue to extend
| over the coming days. They have also promised to support
| Ukraine with intelligence, military supplies, and economic aid.
| They have been providing that over the past months, and every
| indication is that they will continue to do so as long as it's
| possible.
|
| NATO is also greatly increasing it's readiness, in case Russia
| chooses to go beyond Ukraine/Moldova (Moldova is the only
| neighbor to Ukraine uninvolved in NATO and the conflict, and
| Russia already occupies a piece of it) into any NATO country.
| In that eventuality the various NATO countries have all
| committed to going to war - there's a reasonably high chance it
| would be a nuclear one - which also means it's very unlikely
| that Putin will try this.
| pishpash wrote:
| Nobody promised helping out for real. It's all posturing to get
| a proxy pawn to sacrifice for the suzerain's benefit.
| Ukrainians got sold down the (Dnieper) river and I'm surprised
| they still have not realized somehow, when they should have
| realized in 2014 at the latest. I'll eat my words if there is
| some other grand strategy behind it but from today it would
| seem that even sanctions haven't been agreed upon and readied
| to go unlike what we were told.
| jcims wrote:
| I just had two chinooks fly overhead from the direction of
| Wright Patt. I see them maybe once a year.
| dekhn wrote:
| NATO/US is preparing to handle the refugee flood into countries
| invading Ukraine. They are not keeping russia from taking
| ukraine or holding it, by using military force. It looks like
| the takeover of Ukraine will be done by tomorrow.
| gpm wrote:
| You're overestimating the speed of the attack. Even if the
| Ukrainians put up no resistance (and they have been putting
| up resistance) - tanks just don't move that fast/ukraine is a
| big place.
|
| See the dotted lines in this map - that's a rough estimate of
| how far the Russians have made it in a day. Even if they
| continue at the same pace overnight (unlikely), and the next
| day, and the next night, there's still a lot of the country
| they won't have physically reached yet.
|
| https://twitter.com/OSINTNS/status/1496880680143568901/photo.
| ..
| dekhn wrote:
| "By sunset, Russian special forces and airborne troops had
| seized the Chernobyl site and were pushing into the
| outskirts of Kyiv." (that's an update from NY Times. We can
| imagine that special forces will proceed to the government
| house and presidential office building through tonight and
| have ownership by tomorrow)
| dekhn wrote:
| Since they're already shelling Kyiv, they obviously have
| more options than tanks to take ownership of the
| governmental apparatus.
|
| I can't see how Ukraine can put up any realistic defence
| given they now have no radar tracking or air support.
|
| If your point is "it takes tanks a few days to get to
| Kyiv", then, yes, that is technically correct. If your
| point is "Russia needs to invade the whole country", no.
| They own the country when they control the governmental
| apparatus in Kyiv.
| gpm wrote:
| I think you underestimate how easy it will be to take
| control of the government and country.
|
| Ukraine knew that they would be able to take Kyiv
| quickly. Intelligence sources have been saying that for
| weeks. They (Ukraine and it's friends) have been
| preparing for this - openly talking about partisan style
| resistance.
|
| I'm willing to bet that they need to seize pretty close
| to the entire country to maintain any sort of control.
| gumby wrote:
| I suspect Russia will just keep slicing the sausage. Then
| take the western provinces and re install a puppet regime
| as was there before (like Belarus). If that turns out to
| be inadequate down the road, just take another slice or
| two down the road.
|
| The USSR went partially this way in Finland: sliced off
| half the country, though they left the other half alone,
| on sufferance. I don't think Putin would be satisfied
| with that: he'll want another Yanukovych or Lukashenko.
| sveme wrote:
| The US did not control either Iraq nor Afghanistan when
| they took Baghdad or Kabul, respectively. That's not how
| a much weaker force fights nowadays against the more
| powerful opponent.
| dekhn wrote:
| I believe russia has already fully integrated the idea
| that this will shift to a guerilla war once they have
| complete ownership of all the country. Nor is Ukraine (or
| Russia's way of maintaining control over a country once
| they occupy it) is really analogous to either of those
| countries.
| brabel wrote:
| It's interesting that people think that when an enemy country
| (as most people in the west think of Russia) attacks a neutral
| country (after endless warnings and the ocupation of a sizable
| part of its territory several years prior, so it's not like
| this came out of the blue), that they should intervene as if
| they were the world police who decides who can attack who. Or
| some kind of righteous peace force who is above it all, that
| can attack anyone who attacks anyone else, not seeing the irony
| in their position of attacking others who do something they
| don't like.
|
| This thinking really needs to go away. No, it's not ok of
| Russia to attack another country. But if your country then
| counter-attacks on behalf of Ukraine, you should expect Russia
| to then declare war on you immediately. This sounds far-
| fetched, but that could actually happen. And something like it
| did happen numerous times in history and we all remember very
| well how that ended (well some of us do, others seem to have
| never even heard of that).
|
| We like to think Germany was defeated in WWII and the West and
| the Soviet Union (for those few who remember the USSR actually
| arrived in Berlin first, in fact - but lost more lives than
| everyone else combined) won... but that's not true; no one ever
| wins a full-scale war like that. Everyone loses, some just lose
| a bit less than the others... Germany was nearly flattened, but
| not before most of the rest of Europe was as well - priceless
| property, artistic treasures, not to mention lives, were lost
| well beyond anything that someone who claims to be a "victor"
| may admit. This is what happens when a country "helps" others
| just to stop a bully they don't like (and then the other side's
| allies help them, and so on).
|
| I really, really hope Europe will never get flattened again,
| but seeing what is happening in Ukraine, and how people react
| online (some of whom may one day be in a position where they
| can actually act) makes me very doubtful of that even in my
| lifetime (I still have quite a few decades ahead, I hope...).
|
| I don't think we should sit and do nothing! But please stop
| asking our leaders to lower themselves to the same level as the
| aggressor and just drop bombs on other human beings!
|
| Let's show Russia that while they may, on the very short term,
| win a battle, that this kind of behaviour is not acceptable
| anymore in the 21st century, and that for a long time ahead,
| Russia should find itself isolated form the greates economies
| of the world, politically, financially and in any way possible
| to make sure they understand that they must never do this
| again, and anyone watching should take note that no one is
| above the law (that includes the USA!)... if you use violence,
| we will not use violence against you (well, not until we're the
| direct target of the aggression, even I would concede), but
| we'll see you with utmost distrust from then one and make you
| regret deeply to have behaved like that.
|
| If NATO had from the beginning worked this way, we wouldn't
| have found ourselves in this situation... most things went on
| as normal after Russia took over Krimea. And Putin was not
| completely wrong in saying NATO has expanded a lot in the last
| 30 years, which entailed planting bombs right at the Russian's
| doorsteps from all directions, flagrantly provoking the bear
| knowing very well that this was not making them happy, in a
| behaviour quite similar to the bully of the story.
| ok_dad wrote:
| I wish that your comment were taken better here (other than
| the "poking the bear" analogy; I don't agree Russia should
| have worried about the NATO alliance or taken it as a
| threat). No one should be rushing in to fight a war, we need
| to figure out how to make such things as this invasion
| impossible in the future, and figure out how to fight at a
| higher level than using violence and weaponry. Until humanity
| realizes that, even in the face of violence, violence is not
| the answer, we won't get anywhere, we'll just keep fighting.
| I feel for the Ukrainians, but I also feel for dozens of
| other groups of peoples all over the world who are oppressed
| or who have lost their independence (even some in the
| "enlightened" Western Democratic sphere), and I don't
| advocate war in those situations any more than here.
| rmk wrote:
| Ukraine is not a member of NATO, so options are somewhat
| limited. Russia intends to use Chernobyl as a deterrent to
| NATO, according to the report (how, I do not know). It is also
| not straightforward to put a NATO ally right on Russia's
| vulnerable flank (it's endless plains and flat ground from
| Ukraine to Moscow, which has always been a source of strategic
| vulnerability for Moscow), so admitting Ukraine to NATO was
| never a concrete possibility. In fact, the US has had to tread
| very carefully simply to place missiles that are capable of
| carrying nuclear warheads in Poland, which is a neighbor of
| Ukraine.
|
| Russia had a buffer state that was content to do its bidding in
| Yanukovich et. al. but after the Ukrainians overthrew their
| corrupt government and made moves to establish a genuine
| western-style democracy with rule of law, Russia were forced to
| shore up their vulnerable flank. This is part of that process.
| But they now face bad consequences, including neutral Finland
| and Sweden deciding to join NATO, perhaps Georgia also, and
| Germany (and Europe in general) starting to look for alternate
| energy sources in earnest (Russia supplies a huge percentage of
| Europe's energy needs, and is also a huge supplier of many rare
| earths and raw materials that are critical to the Semiconductor
| Industry).
|
| EDIT: Belarus is also a client state of Russia's, and there has
| been unrest there, so perhaps Russia is sensing that they might
| slip as well. Putin is desperate to do whatever it takes to
| stay in power in Russia, and these things play into that as
| well.
| WillPostForFood wrote:
| _It is also not straightforward to put a NATO ally right on
| Russia 's vulnerable flank_
|
| In taking Ukraine, Putin just put Nato on Russia's border.
| kasey_junk wrote:
| NATO has been on Russias border for going on 20 years. The
| Baltic states joined in 2004.
| agumonkey wrote:
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enlargement_of_NATO for
| more details
|
| did this affect Russia negatively ? from my seat it was
| no biggie, and nothing came out of the baltic states
| joining.. no threats, accident, economic problems in the
| news.. but maybe i'm just blind
| jacquesm wrote:
| From Russias POV it was.
| bayesian_horse wrote:
| Yes, countries have neighbors. Learn to deal with it.
|
| Those neighbors are allowed to join defensive agreements.
| Also Gorbatshov denied being "duped" about NATO
| expansion. Also Putin has no reason to be bothered by
| NATO troops in neighbor countries. They aren't anywhere
| close to invasion strength (even if you are prepared to
| consider they would want to despite all the treaties).
|
| It's just that the NATO troops would be in the way when
| Putin decides to reintegrate those neighbors too his
| historic empire.
| jacquesm wrote:
| I'm not saying I agree. It's just that Russian politics
| is a tad more paranoia driven than you might imagine.
| agumonkey wrote:
| It makes few sense.. US backed off afghanistan after
| failure. The tone since Trump is mostly retreat.
|
| I'm just trying to understand.
| jacquesm wrote:
| It's an internal Russian affair that just happened to
| spill over into the surrounding countries and that could
| engulf the world if not dealt with properly. Russia is
| practically bankrupt, infrastructure is failing they have
| another 5 to 10 years left and then the bill is due. This
| may buy them some time, or it may cost them everything.
| bayesian_horse wrote:
| How is this buying any time? The sanctions will only make
| everything worse. There is no profit to be had from
| exploiting Ukraine, at least not comparable to the
| military cost and the sanctions.
| jacquesm wrote:
| It's buying time because Putin owns it, so his cronies
| will let him cling to power to either resolve it or pay
| the price for failure.
|
| If not for this he would have to face the fact that
| Russia is on its last legs. They won't be able to sustain
| this war for very long either hence all the bluster about
| repercussions if other countries decide to help Ukraine
| prolong the conflict.
| agumonkey wrote:
| I'm trying to assess how much of it is a blow to russian
| empire desire and paranoia, or if there were some more
| tangible / material effects. I can understand they really
| don't want a US driven group nearby for multiple reasons.
| jacquesm wrote:
| By Western standards it is probably seen as paranoia, by
| Russian standards it is seen as self defense. They have
| never really gotten over the implosion of the whole USSR.
| agumonkey wrote:
| But it's nearing mania .. if their own collapse is
| causing them to interpret negligible events to the point
| of invasion, anything is on the table ?
| jacquesm wrote:
| Agreed, anything is on the table. And that is what
| worries me, if you start assuming rational actors none of
| this makes sense but if you start assuming non-rational
| paranoid mafiosi with nukes it starts to all look a lot
| more plausible. Putin needs to succeed in subduing
| Ukraine or he will be thrown under a very large bus and
| then you have the next worry lined up: who will replace
| him, which could very well be worse.
|
| People seem to make the mistake of thinking about this in
| some kind of game theoretic way where Russia would have
| something to gain or lose but that's the wrong
| perspective, Putin couldn't care less about Russia or the
| Russians, what he cares about is to cling to power until
| he's dying, if he can't do that then his lot could well
| be worse.
| kasey_junk wrote:
| I know _nothing_ about geopolitics but don't your
| questions presume that the "Ukraine joins NATO" is a real
| reason for the invasion?
|
| If it's an old fashioned land/riches grab then their
| current behavior makes perfect sense.
| JohnBooty wrote:
| If you're American, try to imagine America partially
| breaking up and Washington, Oregon, and Idaho have joined
| an alliance helmed by China.
|
| You're not loving it, you want to make some sharp moves
| to prevent more states from considering it, and you'd
| like to get those states back somehow in the long run.
|
| This is a wildly imperfect analogy, but...
| rmk wrote:
| Yes, I think this will galvanize fence-sitters into
| accelerating the process of joining NATO, which is
| counterproductive for Russia.
| greedo wrote:
| "In fact, the US has had to tread very carefully simply to
| place missiles that are capable of carrying nuclear warheads
| in Poland, which is a neighbor of Ukraine."
|
| This is Russian disinformation. Aegis Ashore (which is the
| system being installed in Poland) is designed to launched SM3
| missiles that are designed to intercept ballistic missiles.
| They aren't nuclear armed at all. The Russians have been
| claiming that the silos could also launch Tomahawk missiles,
| some variants of which are nuclear armed. There have been no
| plans for this to happen, and the US has even offered to
| allow inspections.
| gutitout wrote:
| Can't wait to see how "obligated" the USA will feel about
| Taiwan. I don't believe NATO is the reason they're not
| stopping Putin.
| jrs235 wrote:
| This explains what you mention:
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JrMiSQAGOS4
|
| This guy nailed it 7 years ago!
| pertymcpert wrote:
| The fact that Germany was going to increase their dependence
| on Russian gas with NS2 instead of lowering it is despicable
| and incredibly short sighted. Same country which is going
| nuclear free. Complete morons.
| nuccy wrote:
| Ukraine signed a Budapest memorandum [1] where US, France, UK
| and Russia guaranteed its territory integrity in exhange for
| the 3rd in the world arsenal of nuclear weapons.
|
| 1. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Budapest_Memorandum_on_Sec
| ur...
| garaetjjte wrote:
| Nobody "guaranteed" anything, they just agreed to respect
| Ukraine borders. Which Russia didn't, but other parties
| don't have any other obligation than "seek immediate United
| Nations Security Council action to provide assistance" when
| there is _threat of using nuclear weapons_.
| polski-g wrote:
| They did no such thing:
| https://politics.stackexchange.com/questions/7899/why-
| dont-s...
|
| The leaders just signed a piece of paper which was never
| ratified by legislators and doesn't even guarantee what you
| claim:
|
| > The United States of America, the Russian Federation, and
| the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland,
| reaffirm their commitment to seek immediate United Nations
| Security Council action to provide assistance to Ukraine,
| as a non-nuclear-weapon State Party to the Treaty on the
| Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons, if Ukraine should
| become a victim of an act of aggression or an object of a
| threat of aggression in which nuclear weapons are used.
|
| It was just a promise to have a meeting at the UNSC if
| something happens.
| rmk wrote:
| Interesting. I suppose a resolute response to the first
| violation by Russia might have helped.
| adrr wrote:
| US, France and UK have guaranteed that no country will ever
| dismantle their nukes for a piece of paper. This will make
| the world much more dangerous with Iran pursing nukes which
| will be shortly followed by Saudi Arabia. North Korea will
| never disarm. Proliferation will continue and technology
| advancements will make it easier for countries to acquire
| nukes.
| pkaye wrote:
| Russia is who broke this agreement yet you are blaming
| the others?
| margalabargala wrote:
| It takes two things for an agreement like this to become
| worthless.
|
| The first is a violation of the agreement, which is what
| Russia is doing currently.
|
| The second is the lack of enforcement of the agreement
| against the above violator. If the other signatories
| enforced the agreement, then it would signal that the
| agreement is worthwhile, and other countries would be
| willing to enter into it.
|
| Yes, of course Russia is the aggressor here and was the
| first to break the agreement. But the moment when these
| agreements become worthless, is when violations are not
| enforced, not when violations occur.
| whiddershins wrote:
| This is true of all contracts.
|
| Just because someone agrees to something in a contract
| doesn't make it enforceable, and it's even worse if the
| contract doesn't specify what the consequences are for
| breaking it.
| pkaye wrote:
| Only Russia has not met its obligations of the Memorandum
| as listed in this section.
|
| https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Budapest_Memorandum_on_Se
| cur...
| margalabargala wrote:
| Yes. And the US is not obligated to do anything about
| that, and they indeed are not doing anything about it.
|
| Thus such agreements have become worthless.
|
| Had the US said five days ago, "we will use our military
| to ensure the Budapest Memorandum is followed", and
| defended Ukraine when invaded, then in the future if a
| similar agreement was proposed the country would trust
| that it would be followed. They did not, and this means
| that no one will again enter into a similar agreement.
|
| I'm not claiming that a US military intervention would be
| the "correct" thing to do, merely that it would be
| necessary to preserve worldwide trust in treaties similar
| to the Budapest Memorandum.
| toyg wrote:
| I'm not sure how much trust we'd still have in paper
| agreements after a nuclear winter or two...
| hutzlibu wrote:
| "The memorandum was originally signed by three nuclear
| powers: the Russian Federation, the United Kingdom and
| the United States. China and France gave somewhat weaker
| individual assurances in separate documents."
|
| It is a bit unfair to blame it on US, France and UK only,
| when russia signed the document, too - and was the actual
| party to violate it by attacking ukraine already in 2014.
|
| (russia's position is, that since Maidan 2014 the state
| with which they signed the treaty, does not exist
| anymore)
| Ourgon wrote:
| It is not just "a bit unfair", it is part of the
| nonsensical "all bad things are the fault of 'the west'"
| attitude which has gained so much popularity in the last
| decades. May I suggest the time has come (or, rather, has
| been here a long time) to stop (self-) flagellating and
| to start looking at the things which that much maligned
| "west" actually does right, things which are - gasp -
| worth defending?
| hutzlibu wrote:
| "May I suggest the time has come (or, rather, has been
| here a long time)"
|
| Well, I agree that this attitude "all bad things are the
| fault of 'the west'" is quite stupid.
|
| But the US is the hegemonial power and wants to maintain
| it. So it is natural that those in charge get the flak
| for things going wrong.
|
| And about things going wrong: how about the whole war on
| terror?
|
| Was it really a surprise, that you can't make the world a
| safer place, if you attack countries(against
| international law in one case), to punish some
| individuals?
|
| And Guantanamo is still open.
|
| So yes, the west has some democratic and liberal values
| worth defending against dictators and co. And some only
| understand the language of raw power. But maybe that
| would still work better, if we would stick to those
| principles all the time and not just, when it suits us.
| Ourgon wrote:
| I think we all know that "the west" - whether that be the
| US, western Europe, Israel, Australia or any other
| country which is normally included under that moniker is
| not perfect, especially after having those things you
| just mentioned dragged up on each and every occasion.
| Stop doing that, you do not have to constantly mention
| all "our" sins to make a point, _we know_.
|
| Putin just invaded a sovereign country, maybe you should
| _mention some of the bad things he and the oligarchs who
| fund him_ have been up to? Chechnya, Georgia, Ukraine,
| polonium poisonings, journalists falling from windows or
| being killed on the streets, Alexei Navalny, there 's
| plenty to choose from. Come on, let's hear it. We know
| "we" are sinners, enough of that - save it for a sunday
| sermon or something like that.
|
| _We Know_. Now, it is time to pick up "The Western
| Burden" - or accept the defeat of what we call liberal
| democracy. And yes, _we know_ that there are many flaws
| in what we call _liberal democracy_. It is still
| preferable, warts and all, over the alternatives, whether
| that be some harebrained plan from the World Economic
| Forum, a kleptocratic oligarchy like Putin 's Russia, a
| dystopic surveillance state like Xi's China or some
| combination of these.
|
| So, what's it going to be? More self-flagellation or,
| finally, some clear words on where we stand?
| hutzlibu wrote:
| You speak like all of this happened a long time ago.
|
| But Guantanamao is still open.
|
| Assange is waiting for extradiction and a secret trial,
| under conditions the UN official called torture.
|
| Snowden hiding from exposing illegal surveillance.
|
| And Saudi Arabia still a formidable ally. Despite what
| they do in their own country or in places like Yemen (or
| in some embassies).
|
| And the list goes on. (head something about Turkey
| lately?)
|
| And russia is clearly not a real democracy, but it is way
| more democratic than saudi arabia (they have no voting at
| all, nor human rights)
|
| "So, what's it going to be? More self-flagellation or,
| finally, some clear words on where we stand? "
|
| So I can say in clear words, that I stand by any
| democratic country and any population fighting against
| occupying forces.
|
| But I deeply distrust the motives of the western powers
| to actually care about democracy, but rather their stupid
| games of geopolitics.
|
| So yes, I say we start cleaning our shit up. And then we
| can maybe start lecture other states and play world
| police.
|
| Because the way I see it: western forces would love to
| help get russia their new afghanistan, with lots of
| losses, guerilla warfare and dragging it on for years.
| But this is not helping the people on the ground.
|
| Putin is not cemented in power. He can get actually
| kicked out by elections.
| toyg wrote:
| It takes two to tango. Putin is as much a son of the loot
| of the USSR as Hitler was of the Versailles agreement.
|
| Victory must be magnanimous or it's just temporary.
| pishpash wrote:
| That was always the end game. Non-proliferation is dead.
| The name of the game these days is faster/unstoppable
| delivery for yourself and detecting/stopping the other
| guy. This is why Russia is triggered by NATO ringing it
| to potentially neutralize credible MAD while NATO can
| claim it's a defensive-only alliance.
| sidewndr46 wrote:
| While way off topic, why would Saudi Arabia need nuclear
| weapons? My understanding is they are pretty closely
| allied with Pakistan, a known nuclear state.
| JumpCrisscross wrote:
| > _Ukraine is not a member of NATO, so options are somewhat
| limited_
|
| Ukraine not being in NATO means we aren't obligated to
| intervene. We regularly intervene in various things without a
| treaty requiring it.
| rmk wrote:
| Absolutely. But if a NATO member is attacked, then member
| states are obligated to come to the member's aid. It's
| essentially tantamount to saying, if you are at war with a
| NATO member, you are at war with the whole bloc, which
| includes USA, UK, France (somewhat in/out member over the
| decades), Germany, Turkey, and so on. It's a formidable
| group that acts as a deterrent to any would-be aggressor.
|
| The US is not obligated to intervene in Ukraine, plain and
| simple. The US has a strategic partnership with Ukraine, I
| think, but it's not an ally.
| https://www.defense.gov/News/Feature-
| Stories/Story/Article/1... https://www.state.gov/u-s-
| ukraine-charter-on-strategic-partn...
| _puk wrote:
| The scary thing is if NATO decide to get involved, and it
| turns into war between NATO and Russia, then the security
| of the Baltic States plummets.
|
| Currently, as NATO members, they are not likely to be
| attacked, but if NATO declares war then that deterrent is
| gone.
|
| Hopefully not a likely scenario, but who knows.. There's
| been a lot of tension lately, especially with the likes
| of Belarus bussing migrants across the border into
| Lithuania etc, but no idea where this will end.
| rmk wrote:
| NATO is a defensive alliance, so there has to be a
| provocation for them to act.
| aszen wrote:
| Not necessarily see their previous involvement in
| conflicts. What kind of defence was nato doing in
| Afghanistan
| marvin wrote:
| The attack on Afghanistan was literally an invocation of
| NATO's Article 5, the only time this has happened:
|
| "Article 5 provides that if a NATO Ally is the victim of
| an armed attack, each and every other member of the
| Alliance will consider this act of violence as an armed
| attack against all members and will take the actions it
| deems necessary to assist the Ally attacked."
|
| So, the 9/11 attacks were considered an armed attack on
| the United States, and the alliance deemed it necessary
| to overthrow the Taliban in order to prevent Al-Qaeda
| from perpetrating similar attacks again.
|
| One can disagree with the rationale behind the decision,
| or the cost-benefit ratio. But it did follow the
| protocols of the alliance.
| aszen wrote:
| I think it's very naive to think that us invaded
| afganistan to protect itself or prevent similar attacks.
| It was pure irrational vengeance by bush. It may follow
| their protocols but by no means you can consider invading
| and occupying a foreign country for 20 years as
| defensive. In effect u cannot call nato a defensive
| organization by their involvement in wars where no
| defense was required
| jgraettinger1 wrote:
| > us invaded afganistan to protect itself
|
| ... is a very different thing than ...
|
| > occupying a foreign country for 20 years
|
| When NATO invaded the towers were still smoking, the war-
| on-terror intelligence apparatus had yet to be built, and
| we (I) had no idea whether another attack was
| forthcoming. It felt pretty damn reasonable at the time.
| GavinMcG wrote:
| You're looking at it in retrospect, but decisions to
| involve NATO in responding to an attack on a member
| aren't made with the benefit of hindsight.
| favorited wrote:
| The idea was that the Taliban was harboring Al-Qaeda, so
| NATO members were assisting the US in response to the
| 9/11 attacks.
| aszen wrote:
| Come on folks, u r smart and intelligent unlike most of
| the internet Do u seriously think US needed support of a
| dozen countries to chase away some ak47 weilding dudes in
| caves with no airforce or modern weaponry. Nato invaded
| afganistan.
| bluejekyll wrote:
| Whether you believe it was right or wrong to get involved
| in Afghanistan, NATO's involvement there (not Iraq) was a
| direct response to the 9/11 attacks and the government
| (at the time) of Afghanistan's refusing to allow the US
| to directly target the group responsible that was based
| there.
| aszen wrote:
| Their response was invading a country for 20 years, you
| can hardly count it as defensive. Invading afghanistan
| was always about more than 9/11, it was far more than
| that.
| epgui wrote:
| The difference between a defensive response and an
| offensive is not how long it lasts.
| wazoox wrote:
| Like in Libya in 2011? In Kosovo in 1999? This fairy tale
| has been dead for decades now.
| ggreg84 wrote:
| Note that every member can decide how it aids.
|
| Germany aid to Ukraine was to send them 5k helmets.
|
| Those helmets didn't do anything against Russia's
| missiles.
|
| ---
|
| That is, attacking a member of NATO just means that all
| other members must help it, but how they help, is up to
| them, and that help can be just a pat in the back.
| Arubis wrote:
| > if a NATO member is attacked, then member states are
| obligated to come to the member's aid. It's essentially
| tantamount to saying, if you are at war with a NATO
| member, you are at war with the whole bloc,
|
| This is the deterrent--and it also rhymes with the Triple
| Entente v. Triple Alliance tensions that set off the
| Great War.
| toyg wrote:
| Turkey has complained for years that NATO would be
| required to help them with this or that conflict in the
| area, and it didn't.
|
| In the end, there is no supranational tribunal for
| military allegiances - in matters of conflict, Hobbes'
| jungle is still very much there.
| avazhi wrote:
| America will do nothing except 'strongly condemn' what's
| happening, just like the rest of the world. The simple fact
| is that there is no real upside to risking actual war with
| Russia - that the Russians will dominate the Ukraine while
| walking away with a bloody nose (in the form of minor troop
| losses of its own) is a foregone conclusion. Without more,
| that's a localised conflict that Russia rather hilariously
| can try to claim the moral high ground about (NATO
| encroachment, historical alliances, American instability
| and foreign meddling), but if America or indeed any of the
| other nuclear powers gets involved, the risks increase
| massively very quickly. If two nuclear powers went at it
| properly here - I don't care which two - we enter into
| long-tailed territory and it's something we've simply never
| seen. There's absolutely no chance America or the UK risk
| that - they can get their wheat from somewhere else.
|
| On the one hand, I feel bad for Ukrainians. On the other
| hand, the whole world saw it coming, just like we can see
| China invading Taiwan at some point in the future, and the
| calculus will be the exact same: Taiwan means more to China
| than it does to America, and the Ukraine means more to
| Russia than it does to the West.
|
| It is perilous to fight somebody, whether it's Putin or Xi,
| with vested emotional interests in the subject matter of
| the fight when all you've got is ideology.
|
| And so nothing will come of this except 'strong
| condemnations'. As if any strongman ever gave a fuck.
| pkaye wrote:
| > America will do nothing except 'strongly condemn'
| what's happening, just like the rest of the world.
|
| People don't want a 'world police' anymore.
| flyinglizard wrote:
| "People" don't want their regular neighborhood police
| either, but take it away and people start appreciating
| it.
| bayesian_horse wrote:
| The sanctions are extremely tough and not entirely
| painless for the US and other western countries.
|
| Also the US has delivered weapons to Ukraine.
|
| They don't want to engage in a war with Russia, and that
| decision I think is the right one for now. A couple years
| down the road, if the sanctions don't succeed in
| containing Putin's aggression, we might have a different
| discussion.
| vanviegen wrote:
| What people are you talking about exactly? Those in
| Ukraine?
| powersnail wrote:
| Ukraine hasn't requested any foreign military aid so far.
| vanviegen wrote:
| Of course they have, privately, all the while knowing
| they were never going to get it.
| powersnail wrote:
| "Of course" according to what?
| rmk wrote:
| Of course according to the repeated pronouncements of
| everyone ranging from their President to Foreign Minister
| to Defense Minister to the ambassadors.
|
| See this report for a brief example: https://researchbrie
| fings.files.parliament.uk/documents/SN07...
|
| The US and UK governments have been formally and
| repeatedly asked for help.
|
| This information is also constantly in the news. The US
| has provided almost $3 Billion in military aid to Ukraine
| in the past several years alone. The UK has also provided
| significant amounts of aid. Ditto for NATO. All of these
| are not 'forced' on Ukraine!
| ethbr0 wrote:
| Then they're going to have to remember what a world
| without police looks like.
| jjtheblunt wrote:
| I wonder how resolve would shift if Putin were to come
| down with a case of polonium poisoning, or other tricks
| from his own repertoire?
| bayesian_horse wrote:
| Some would blame it on the CIA. The more likely
| perpetrator would always be someone in Russia trying to
| replace Putin.
|
| Assassinating or targeting political leaders is a war
| crime. The CIA might have done that - quite a while in
| the past, mind you - but never against an adversary like
| Russia. At the very least you would expect a few US
| politicians to drop dead if there ever were such an
| attempt.
| avidiax wrote:
| That would be a pretty terrible escalation in the spy
| game. There is an uneasy balance where government
| officials and their families are off limits for any
| physical harm. That means that CIA officials can live
| relatively peaceful lives just as FSB agents do.
|
| If you let that genie out of the bottle, it better be a
| prelude to a winnable war, or you had better be happy to
| have all your government officials, diplomats, and their
| families on permanent lockdown.
| rmk wrote:
| I do not think the US does political assassinations (I
| may be utterly wrong here, if so, please post examples!)
| It does use assassinations against terrorists or quasi-
| political figures such as Qasem Soleimani, but I doubt
| that eliminating Putin is even being contemplated here.
| ethbr0 wrote:
| > _China invading Taiwan at some point in the future_
|
| And that's the perspective this should be viewed from.
|
| The US may not have a firm interest in Ukraine. The US
| has a fairly firm interest in Taiwan. The US has a
| serious interest in Korea, Japan, and the countries
| bordering the South China Sea.
|
| You have to strongly and unconditionally support
| international order re: Ukraine, so that Xi takes away
| the right message.
| newuser94303 wrote:
| I think the stronger message is that the US is trying to
| move chip manufacturing to the US so it will not care
| about Taiwan.
| selfhoster11 wrote:
| Alternative interpretation: they are trying to undo the
| total idiocy that was putting all your microchip eggs in
| one basket. It doesn't matter how cost-effective it is to
| centralise production, if the result is that the
| production capability for the single thing we need the
| most to continue our lifestyle (high-performance
| integrated circuits), is in peril from a natural/man-made
| disaster occuring in a small geographical area.
| oezi wrote:
| The question obviously is if Ukraine compares to Hitler
| taking Austria or part of Czechoslovakia and condemnation
| is just appeasement until an assault on the next
| country...
| nine_k wrote:
| I hope that beside strong condemnations, the US will also
| help with money (wars are expensive!) and stuff useful at
| war, from medical supplies to maybe weapons like Stingers
| and Javelins.
|
| I also hope that the US will share intelligence
| information; US's abilities here are far greater than
| Ukraine's.
| throwaway888abc wrote:
| Exactly Iraq, Syria, Afghanistan, Yugoslavia
| mikeyouse wrote:
| Intervening militarily invites a counter response from
| Russia and could lead to outright war between NATO and
| Russia. It's one thing to assist Kuwait, quite another to
| send troops to fight a nuclear-armed adversary.
| JumpCrisscross wrote:
| Totally agree. Just clarifying that the limiting factor
| on international responses isn't Ukraine's NATO
| nonmembership.
| alecbz wrote:
| I think people are implying "obviously we'd like to avoid
| direct military conflict with Russia if possible", so
| given that there's nothing strongly compelling us to
| intervene directly (like Ukraine being in NATO), we're
| obviously not.
|
| (I'm unclear on how true the silent implication is, but
| seems reasonable).
| mvc wrote:
| So we wait until they're doing this in Poland? I think
| I've seen this one before. Doesn't end well for anyone
| involved.
|
| Better to hit an enemy when they're not expecting it.
| karpierz wrote:
| The logical conclusion of this is the "first strike"
| doctrine of MAD (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pre-
| emptive_nuclear_strike).
|
| Every major power has had 50 years to prepare for it, and
| it won't work.
|
| You want to respond proportionally, and make it hurt. But
| you also want to leave room for more pain, to give
| incentive for the behaviour to stop. And you need to make
| sure that your adversary believes that you'll keep
| hurting them. This is why we use some, but not all of the
| economic sanctions available:
|
| 1. If things get worse, we can make the sanctions worse.
| 2. We're much more likely to be able to maintain
| sanctions than soldiers in foreign wars.
| mvc wrote:
| They have already encircled a sovereign nation with their
| army and are moving in. Our "proportionate" response so
| far has been to shut down a couple of banks.
|
| I'm not talking about a nuclear strike. All out nuclear
| war is clearly in nobody's interest (what's the point in
| ruling over a nuclear wasteland). Putin is relying on the
| fact that we are all so scared about that scenario that
| we will be weak in our support of Ukraine (and Latvia,
| Lithuania, Poland....).
|
| China talks a good game now but how long do you think
| China will tolerate Russia bombing their most valuable
| customers?
| hx833001 wrote:
| You realize that we can't control the response of the
| enemy we "hit" unexpectedly, right? They make one
| miscalculation, launch a nuclear warhead, and in 30
| minutes several exchanges of missiles are launched,
| millions of people are dead, and cities in America and
| Russia destroyed. It's not a board game.
| bayesian_horse wrote:
| The Russian people are already pretty angry with Putin
| over Ukraine. And they are going to be a lot angrier
| about the coming sanctions, then it doesn't really matter
| if they are angry with Putin or the west.
|
| There is no way Putin will say after this war "Thank you
| sir, may I have another?" He'll be hard pressed to keep
| financing his military...
| jfengel wrote:
| Are they? I am sure that some are, but I get the
| impression that he has a fair bit of support from the
| country.
|
| That might fade when/if the sanctions become serious, but
| thus far I have the impression that he's generally
| popular (if not as popular as rigged polls would suggest)
| for his hard-line stance against the US, NATO, and
| Europe.
|
| Am I wrong about that?
| sofixa wrote:
| He enjoys support, but even from those who support him
| there are people who disagree with a war and the death
| and destruction it will bring. Nothing works like dead
| family members and economic hardship to sow doubt in a
| political leader's support.
| AlexAndScripts wrote:
| Anecdotally, even intelligent people I know seem to be
| buying the Russian propaganda about it merely being a
| peacekeeping mission to stop the human rights violations
| in Donbas.
| bcrosby95 wrote:
| NATO drew their line in the sand. Intervene when it's
| crossed. It's better to not bait and switch a nuclear
| power into war.
| mvc wrote:
| We drew a line in the sand when we persuaded them to get
| rid of their own nukes, ensuring that we'd have their
| back.
|
| That we don't actually have their back will be noted by
| despots the world over.
| ngcc_hk wrote:
| It is still an independent state and a member for a long
| term of un. Can one just take one like japan say if it is
| not part of nato.
| kasey_junk wrote:
| If no one has the will to stop it... yes. But Japan is a
| bad example because the US & Japan maintain mutual
| defense agreements. If it's invaded the US will act.
| bayesian_horse wrote:
| There is a scenario where North Korea feels an invasion
| is imminent and uses short and medium range nuclear
| missiles against US bases, for example in Japan. With the
| calculation that this would nip any kind of invasion in
| the bud, and the US military might refrain from nuclear
| retaliation because North Korea would threaten the east
| coast with long range nuclear missiles.
|
| But that kind of calculation "oh, the US won't have the
| stomach to fight a useless war if you hit them hard
| enough first" was exactly what doomed the Japanese
| Empire.
| toast0 wrote:
| > because North Korea would threaten the east coast with
| long range nuclear missiles.
|
| I don't think NK has currently credible launch systems to
| make it to the east coast (of the US)?
|
| Also, the past century shows the US had the stomach to
| fight useless wars, so I'd hope NK has noticed that.
| rmk wrote:
| NATO is just one of the several defense alliances the US
| has. The US is basically the guarantor of security for a
| number of East Asian countries, Middle Eastern countries,
| you name it... We are not called the World's Policeman
| for nothing.
| willis936 wrote:
| Costs money and political capital. What it buys is defense
| of Ukrainian sovereignty and escalates conflict with a
| dangerous, poor nuclear superpower.
|
| Ukraine is being handed to Putin. He gets to flex his
| strongman ego and the world gets to not be ended (today).
| StillBored wrote:
| Which sounds disturbingly like British/French response to
| the Rhineland/Austria lead up to WWII.
| willis936 wrote:
| Indeed. Some things are different today. Nukes, cyber
| weapons, NATO borders being tougher than the League of
| Nations, the imperial country having a weak economy, and
| the whole thing is a war without a cause.
|
| Russia invading a NATO country would be akin to walking
| on a landmine. Putin's not a fool, so it is very unlikely
| to happen.
| dabeledo wrote:
| Sudetenland
| selfhoster11 wrote:
| > Russia were forced to shore up their vulnerable flank
|
| Russia wasn't forced to do anything. They could've merely
| quietly dropped two of their delusions:
|
| a) NATO was never going to attack them, unless it literally
| went crazy, or someone framed Russia so badly that a nuclear
| response was preferable to any other option. The West doesn't
| want to trigger a MAD scenario, and are keen to keep the
| post-WW2 peace and (in the case of the US) bomb less defended
| countries for their natural resources. Any claims or beliefs
| to the contrary are a projected reflection of their own
| priorities.
|
| b) buffer zones outside of the neighborhood is getting more
| crowded. Big deal, if you are really so keen on a buffer
| zone, then maybe sacrifice a few square km out of the
| ABSOLUTELY MASSIVE part of the continent that they already
| control. Does that mean risking important areas? Oh noes.
| Security has a cost, so if you're not willing to pay for it,
| quit whining.
| toyg wrote:
| _> and (in the case of the US) bomb less defended countries
| for their natural resources._
|
| That's not terribly different from what Russia is doing
| with Ukraine - they will overwhelm a weaker country for
| their own strategic reasons, enjoying the impunity granted
| by a nuclear arsenal (and not just your average one: the
| largest!).
| trhway wrote:
| >In fact, the US has had to tread very carefully simply to
| place missiles that are capable of carrying nuclear warheads
| in Poland, which is a neighbor of Ukraine.
|
| according to Putin that treading is a major motivation for
| his current actions.
| rmk wrote:
| That's correct. You don't put missiles in range of a
| nuclear superpower's population centers and expect them to
| ignore it. But I feel that the timing of this is more
| related to Putin's political situation at home.
| jakeinspace wrote:
| I keep seeing this being repeated, but the state of
| nuclear deterrence is very different than during the
| Cuban missile crisis. The US, UK, France, and Russia all
| have enough nuclear-armed subs sitting just outside of
| enemy waters to destroy every major target on both sides.
| The US doesn't have nuclear weapons in Poland, nor does
| it need them. Russia cannot stop thousands of ICBMs and
| hundreds of sub-launched closer range nukes, and neither
| can the US.
| rmk wrote:
| You are talking about the military aspects. The political
| aspects matter too, and sometimes much more than the
| military aspects. Do you think the US would be content to
| let Russia place missiles on Cuban soil today? Why is
| China cagey about the US deploying THAAD on South Korean
| soil?
| trhway wrote:
| >the timing of this is more related to Putin's political
| situation at home.
|
| yes, as i already wrote during the last year, Ukraine got
| Turkish drones and with them the window of opportunity to
| win the Donbass war (like Azerbaijan/Turkey did against
| Armenia/Russia). The fall of Donbass would have been a
| large failure for Putin which his regime would have hard
| time to survive. Without bringing aviation though Russian
| forces couldn't operate successfully there (especially
| given the tank swallowing deep Spring mud what is going
| to happen in few weeks), and this is what happened
| yesterday across Ukraine - attacks on airfields and air-
| defenses, command and control centers, etc.
| rmk wrote:
| Yes, Russia has a finite window in which it can bring in
| its tanks and heavy artillery, which are its strengths,
| before the spring thaws mire them in the mud. It's not
| entirely clear what the endgame is here, though. They can
| not sustain an occupation, and they will suffer heavy
| casualties if they do a street-to-street urban war; they
| will face questions at home if heavy Russian casualties
| are incurred, which is entirely possible given the US and
| UK have armed the Ukrainians up the wazoo with antitank
| missiles; they can not sustain a 'fortress Russia' with
| $630 Billion in USD reserves indefinitely; and they
| certainly can not stop the long term turn towards NATO
| and away from Russian energy exports, which will get a
| jolt in the arm after this disastrous war.
| brabel wrote:
| > ... including neutral Finland and Sweden deciding to join
| NATO, perhaps Georgia also.
|
| Did you hear evidence of that anywhere or is that just wild
| speculation?
| rmk wrote:
| Sorry, I meant that it's a possible consequence. It has not
| actually occurred.
| bandyaboot wrote:
| Well it's been reported that Sweden and Finland are going
| to attend an emergency NATO summit on Friday. So,
| speculation yes, but "wild" speculation? I don't think so.
| brabel wrote:
| Sweden has participated in several NATO meetings and even
| trainings over the years, but that's quite different from
| announcing they will outright join NATO.
| bandyaboot wrote:
| Yes, which is why I said it's still speculation.
| TheCondor wrote:
| Is Ukraine even issuing counter attacks?
|
| I'm not sure what the west is expecting, some sort of massive
| retreat like when Iraq pulled out of Kuwait? It looks pre-
| ordained that Ukraine will fall and should we want to stop it,
| we probably need to strike Moscow or something like that. I
| don't know how much appetite there is for something like that
| in the US, Trump and his supporters seem to support Russia
| here.
| terafo wrote:
| Yes. For example: russia took airport in Hostomel earlier
| today. Ukrainian army started counter attack and prevented
| russian planes from landing. Airport isn't retaken yet, there
| are heavy fights out there, but the main objective of
| preventing massive russian troops landing is achieved.
| sAbakumoff wrote:
| Putin warned the West that he wouldn't hesitate to conduct a
| nuclear strike if they try to meddle.
| nickpp wrote:
| Source? He never said that.
| lijogdfljk wrote:
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0oAOSTiumsg
|
| How can you ask for source but then confidently claim
| otherwise. Ugh.
|
| _edit_ : https://old.reddit.com/r/therewasanattempt/commen
| ts/t0di4z/t... is a crappy Reddit link, but also goes on to
| include the nuclear mention as well.
|
| How can you view this as anything but a nuclear warning?
| brabel wrote:
| Just post the transcript of the full speech, it was not
| hard to find it:
|
| https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2022-02-24/full-
| tran...
|
| Here's the relevant part (interpret this as you will):
|
| "I would now like to say something very important for
| those who may be tempted to interfere in these
| developments from the outside. No matter who tries to
| stand in our way or all the more so create threats for
| our country and our people, they must know that Russia
| will respond immediately, and the consequences will be
| such as you have never seen in your entire history. No
| matter how the events unfold, we are ready. All the
| necessary decisions in this regard have been taken. I
| hope that my words will be heard."
| nickpp wrote:
| Please highlight the word _nuclear_ in that transcript.
| brabel wrote:
| There isn't one. I am not the person who was claiming
| there was, if that's what you're implying.
|
| Some people think that his words imply nuclear, but as
| it's not directly mentioned, that's just one
| interpretation.
|
| If you ask me, I think that means just some secret weapon
| pointed directly at whoever Putin believes may
| interfere... but no one really knows.
| anon_123g987 wrote:
| You quoted the "wrong" part of the speech. Here it is, I
| highlighted for you:
|
| > As for military affairs, even after the dissolution of
| the USSR and losing a considerable part of its
| capabilities, today's Russia remains one of the most
| powerful _NUCLEAR_ states. Moreover, it has a certain
| advantage in several cutting-edge weapons. In this
| context, there should be no doubt for anyone that any
| potential aggressor will face defeat and ominous
| consequences should it directly attack our country.
| nickpp wrote:
| Watch those again. He never pronounced the word
| _nuclear_. It was just a (more or less empty) threat in
| the poker game he is playing to keep cowardly politicians
| from helping an independent nation being invaded.
|
| Looks like it worked. I wonder what else are people
| willing to give up at the mere hint of a nuclear threat:
| their houses? Their freedom? Their friends? Their
| spouses? Their children?
| lijogdfljk wrote:
| People are already giving up their freedom, friends,
| spouses and children. They're called Ukrainian.
|
| Also, he did say it, according to that _transcription_. I
| don't speak Russian, so i wouldn't know beyond that.
| Regardless don't play dumb, you and everyone else knew
| what he meant. Whether or not he'll follow through is the
| question - but what he meant was obvious. He knew what he
| was implying.
| nickpp wrote:
| Again, please point out the word _nuclear_ in that
| transcript.
|
| It was an empty threat. And, sadly, the West fell for it
| and now the Ukrainians are paying the price.
| lijogdfljk wrote:
| I'm sorry, but it's in there.
|
| > Russia is one of the most powerful nuclear powers in
| the world
|
| If you're using a different transcript then i'm not
| commenting on that. I was literally just pointing to what
| i posted, which may not be accurate - as i said multiple
| times.
|
| Not sure why i had to type out what is clearly readable
| in what i posted, but /shrug
| anon_123g987 wrote:
| Here you go:
|
| > As for military affairs, even after the dissolution of
| the USSR and losing a considerable part of its
| capabilities, today's Russia remains one of the most
| powerful _NUCLEAR_ states. Moreover, it has a certain
| advantage in several cutting-edge weapons. In this
| context, there should be no doubt for anyone that any
| potential aggressor will face defeat and ominous
| consequences should it directly attack our country.
| nickpp wrote:
| Please reread the post I originally replied to:
|
| > Putin warned the West that he wouldn't hesitate to
| conduct a nuclear strike if they try to meddle.
|
| I maintain he never said that and that interpreting the
| word nuclear which indeed appears at the beginning of the
| speech (I stand corrected) in the context of the
| retaliation threat at the end - is quite a stretch.
| in_cahoots wrote:
| The retaliation threat is right there in the same
| paragraph as mentioning their nuclear capabilities, I'm
| not sure how you can rationally argue otherwise.
| [deleted]
| aaronchall wrote:
| Mutually assured destruction means that his entire ass is
| destroyed - there's a lot more of NATO than there is of him.
| nickpp wrote:
| Exactly. That is why he never actually threatened with a
| nuclear strike, just some vague "retaliation". But that was
| sadly enough for cowardly politicians to abandon Ukraine
| all over again...
| bart_spoon wrote:
| A counter attack by the US/EU was never on the table, as
| Ukraine isn't a NATO member. Some of those nations have
| provided weapons and supplies for the Ukrainian defense in
| recent weeks, but from an actual conflict perspective, the
| Ukrainians are on their own.
|
| The EU/US are attempting to retaliate in non-military ways,
| primarily through the form of economic sanctions. However, it
| seems like some of the most impactful actions available, like
| cutting Russia out of Swift, are being held up by Germany and
| Italy.
|
| The US and NATO are sending military reinforcements to Eastern
| NATO nations such as Poland, but they will not actually engage
| or enter Ukraine so long as Russia doesn't push through Ukraine
| into NATO nations, which I don't think anyone expects.
| bayesian_horse wrote:
| All NATO members categorically ruled out military involvement
| in this conflict.
| 13415 wrote:
| Some analysis (not by an expert though):
|
| 1. There will be no EU or US troops coming to aid Ukraine, and
| Ukraine knows that. It was clear from the start that direct
| NATO involvement could lead to WW3 and there is currently no
| will to risk that for a non-NATO member.
|
| 2. In numbers, the Russian military is about 6 to 12 times
| stronger than the Ukrainian military (in terms of tanks,
| fighter planes, heavy weaponry). They have already gained air
| superiority, so they can move around airborne troops quickly,
| albeit with a certain risk from portable ground-to-air
| missiles. They are also trying to install an air bridge near
| the capital, although it's unclear at the moment whether they
| have succeeded.
|
| 4. The main target of the Russian military are currently all
| major cities in the East of Ukraine. Russian forces can be
| expected to occupy the capital Kyiv within hours or days from
| now. If the Ukrainian forces fight exceptionally well, they
| might delay this for weeks but that's unlikely.
|
| 5. Once Kyiv is occupied, Russia will quickly install a puppet
| regime, send around death squads, and basically instill terror
| to break active and passive resistance. Pro-Putin Ukrainians
| will emerge and take over. It's going to be similar to what
| happened in Chechnya in the past and the Donbas region. Armed
| men without insignia will snatch people from the street and
| torture them, citizens will disappear, etc. There will be fake
| elections.
|
| I hope I'm wrong but that's about my prognosis. The civilized
| world can currently not do much about it except imposing
| sanctions and delivering arms to Ukraine. A good response now
| would be to break diplomatic ties with Russia and to exclude
| Russia from the Swift system. It would also make sense to
| sharpen media control and party financing laws in various
| countries since the Russian government has been using loopholes
| to finance willfully ignorant evil and divisive parties all
| over the world to weaken the EU and divide US and Europe.
| newuser94303 wrote:
| The whole thing is very puzzling. Russia will take Ukraine but
| Ukraine is one of the poorest countries in Europe. There is no
| way that Russia can conquer all of Europe. The West will not
| attack because Russia has nukes. The sanctions will eventually
| wear Russia down. What is the end game? Is he that confident
| that the West will just forgive and forget?
| t-writescode wrote:
| Yes. And we probably will.
|
| He wants a warm water port.
| LandR wrote:
| Russia has no warm water ports currently ?
| NateEag wrote:
| Not sure if GP is serious oes joking. Russia's history
| has been half-jokingly summarised as "the search for a
| warm-water port."
|
| https://www.jstor.org/stable/44642451
| t-writescode wrote:
| I don't believe they have any Western, warm-water ports.
| EugeneOZ wrote:
| The end game is to receive another puppet-state close to
| Russia. It's the only target.
| CobrastanJorji wrote:
| It reads to me as different goals. You know those slightly
| asymmetric board games where different players have different
| objectives? I think Putin has already amassed effectively
| infinite money and power, so his new goal is immortality,
| which I think means establishing a greater legacy by
| restoring as much of the the Soviet Union's old borders as it
| can. This is probably not actually in Russia's interests, but
| the goal isn't "Russia succeeds," it's "Putin remembered as
| great."
| vanviegen wrote:
| This explanation seems rather plausible to me, but is
| getting downvotes. What am I not seeing?
| anigbrowl wrote:
| Basically if EU/US forces engage Russians directly it's ww3. I
| think that's going to happen anyway, but mismatches in tempo
| are common and rational in the early stages of a conflict.
| Johnny555 wrote:
| The EU and USA can't attack Russian troops directly without
| escalating the war far more than anyone wants. No one wants to
| provoke a nuclear nation, not even another nuclear nation.
|
| As long as Putin doesn't try to advance out of Ukraine, I doubt
| that NATO will offer any direct support beyond supplying arms
| and training.
| ethbr0 wrote:
| There was a missed opportunity to seriously prevent war.
|
| NATO should have been requested to by Ukraine and declared a
| no fly zone for military aviation west of the Dnieper,
| _before_ Russia invaded.
|
| An inability to use aviation would have severely slowed
| Russian plans.
| Johnny555 wrote:
| I really doubt that NATO would be willing to enforce this
| no-fly zone in a non-NATO nation, that would mean being
| willing to shoot down Russian military aircraft, which
| would surely escalate the war.
| ethbr0 wrote:
| Neither Iraq (1991+) nor Bosnia and Herzegovina (1993+)
| were NATO members, and it served its purpose there.
|
| And hence declaring it _before_ Russia invaded. Which
| forces Russia to choose to shoot down NATO aircraft, or
| operate outside those zones.
| Johnny555 wrote:
| When Iraq invaded Kuwait, we were willing to fight (and
| eventually did fight) a war with Iraq.
|
| NATO is not prepared or willing to start a war with
| Russia.
| aszen wrote:
| You are forgetting the fact that the odds are heavily
| against NATO, in a RAND wargame it was found that russia
| can occupy the baltic States within 48 hours while nato
| would be still warning up
| Johnny555 wrote:
| It's not clear what I'm forgetting when I said "NATO is
| not prepared or willing to start a war with Russia."
| aszen wrote:
| It is simply not in their favour, why would they be
| willing to lose their face over something like Ukraine.
|
| It seems that many in the West think they have unlimited
| power to do anything and interfere in any conflict.
| Reality is those days are over now.
| fancifalmanima wrote:
| You seem to explicitly agree with the person you're
| replying to, but are claiming they're forgetting
| something. That's the disconnect here.
| the_snooze wrote:
| What you're describing is setting up a shooting conflict
| between nuclear powers. That is bad. Like really bad. It
| doesn't matter who shoots first because everyone dies.
| ethbr0 wrote:
| That cuts both ways. NATO air assets over Western Ukraine
| would have forced Russia to _start_ a shooting conflict
| with a nuclear alliance.
|
| As is, they were able to move into Ukraine without
| nuclear risk, because the US _explicitly_ said we wouldn
| 't put troops there.
|
| And let's not pretend Russia shooting down a US plane or
| vice versus would start a nuclear war. It happened fairly
| commonly during the Cold War, quietly.
| Johnny555 wrote:
| _And let 's not pretend Russia shooting down a US plane
| or vice versus would start a nuclear war. It happened
| fairly commonly during the Cold War, quietly._
|
| This is not the cold war, I don't think anyone can
| predict what Putin will do if provoked and he needs to
| save face.
| garaetjjte wrote:
| But NATO doesn't really want to fight that war.
| Electorate would vote governments out for getting
| involved in war they doesn't really care about. And Putin
| knows that too.
|
| So what if NATO puts some forces in Ukraine, but Putin
| calls their bluff and attacks anyway? Small contingent
| wouldn't be nearly enough to hold the territory, so you
| need to either engage for real (but you don't have
| political capital for that), or withdraw forces which
| would look like huge humiliation.
| the_snooze wrote:
| NATO forces in or above Ukraine would be the modern
| equivalent of the Cuban Missile Crisis, and we would be
| the aggressors setting up shop right next to a nuclear
| power. A lot of our fighter aircraft are nuclear-capable,
| and the Russians would have no way of telling which
| missiles are conventional-tipped or nuclear-tipped.
|
| What you're describing is reckless brinksmanship. One
| mistake or misread and the world ends.
| ethbr0 wrote:
| NATO forces have been above Ukraine for the last several
| years. The US et al. were flying ISR missions right up
| against the borders of Belarus, Russia, and eastern
| Ukraine rebel-held areas up to a couple days ago.
|
| "Reckless brinkmanship" is an odd phrase, when we're
| talking about responses to Russia invading a sovereign
| country.
| aszen wrote:
| Simple fact is western powers don't have the capability
| to maintain any sort of airspace over ukraine or other
| nearby countries. Russia is not a weak country that can
| be deterred by a no fly zone.
| ethbr0 wrote:
| Russia has been trying to produce PAK-FA / Su-57 fighters
| since 2010.
|
| They currently have ~4.
|
| There's a reason Russia invests so much in SAM systems.
| They expect NATO to have air superiority.
| aszen wrote:
| Read some latest defence blogs, Russia not only has the
| best air defence systems but leading electronic warfare
| technologies. Many countries buy Russian weapons even
| facing western sanctions. They are cheap and effective.
| ethbr0 wrote:
| See earlier point about air defense systems being a
| priority due to lacking fighter parity.
|
| Which EW systems are you talking about?
| ajuc wrote:
| Ukraine did (or some similar arrangement, I'm not sure
| about details). NATO declined.
| decafninja wrote:
| As others have said, Ukraine isn't in NATO so there is no
| obligation for the US or EU to militarily come to its aid.
|
| That said, Putin is increasing his risk appetite. Ukraine will
| most likely fall and have a puppet government installed,
| probably within weeks at most.
|
| But then next year, what if he decides to up his ante and
| target one of the NATO member ex-USSR Baltic states for
| "reasons"?
|
| Will NATO come to their defense militarily? Will the UK,
| France, Germany, as well as the US decide it is worth going to
| war with Russia to defend Estonia, Latvia, etc.?
|
| What about China and Taiwan? If China decides to invade Taiwan,
| will anyone decide it is worth going to war with China to
| defend Taiwan militarily?
|
| My prediction to those questions is - no. The authoritarian
| regimes have the upper hand in the current global state of
| affairs because the Western democracies are afraid of the
| consequences of going toe to toe militarily against them. I
| don't not sympathize - to be honest I have no clue what the
| solution is.
|
| I don't think the opposite is necessarily true. If the US were
| to attack a country that Russia or China would truly lose face
| over (Iraq, Afghanistan, etc. frankly are not), I feel Putin or
| Xi would, in fact, choose to wage war.
| causi wrote:
| EU and US will use every diplomatic and financial weapon
| against Russia, but they've long since decided Ukraine and the
| Ukrainian people aren't worth actual war over. That call was
| made in 2014 and stopping Russia then would've been easier than
| it would be now.
| qbasic_forever wrote:
| Until the US puts sanctions on Russia's oil/gas and doesn't
| buy it, then no not every financial or diplomatic weapon is
| being used. Right now it seems the US is reluctant to do
| this: https://twitter.com/business/status/1496861082907906048
| tommoor wrote:
| Same for UK - sanctions on russian companies but we keep
| the gas and thus money flowing back to Russia.
| whatshisface wrote:
| It's not clear whether every financial weapon will be used.
| For example,
|
| > _The foreign ministers of the Baltic states called for
| Russia to be cut off from SWIFT, the global intermediary for
| banks ' financial transactions. However, other EU member
| states were reluctant, both because European lenders held
| most of the nearly $30 billion in foreign bank's exposure to
| Russia and because China has developed an alternative to
| SWIFT called CIPS; a weaponisation of SWIFT would provide
| greater impetus to the development of CIPS which in turn
| would weaken SWIFT as well as the West's control over
| international finance.[262][263] Other leaders calling for
| Russia to be stopped from accessing SWIFT include Czech
| President Milos Zeman[264] and UK Prime Minister Boris
| Johnson.[265]_
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2022_Russian_invasion_of_Ukrai.
| ..
| jandrese wrote:
| This is where diplomacy should shine. It's clear that
| Russia has been hardening against western sanctions for
| years now, and CIPS is a big piece of that. If NATO can
| convince China to also shut them out of CIPS at the same
| time we turn off SWIFT the Russian Oligarchs will start
| applying pressure to Putin.
| sbmthakur wrote:
| You need to convince Europeans before China.
|
| https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/feb/24/kyiv-
| furious-a...
| AnimalMuppet wrote:
| I doubt that's going to happen. China has refused to even
| call this an invasion, and has said that it's the West's
| fault.
| nojs wrote:
| Source?
| foxfluff wrote:
| All over the news if you do a search. First hits:
|
| https://www.reuters.com/world/china/china-rejects-
| calling-ru...
|
| https://www.cnbc.com/2022/02/24/china-refuses-to-call-
| attack...
| AnimalMuppet wrote:
| Thanks.
|
| In fairness to nojs, I tried to search for it to back up
| my claim, and couldn't find it again.
| Andrew_nenakhov wrote:
| Russian oligarchs will not apply pressure to Putin. They
| are all accomplices now.
|
| All this politics theater of the past few days was to
| make everyone of notice show support for invasion, in
| public form. Lawmakers, Security council, oligarchs,
| senators, everyone. So they would know they won't be able
| to betray him and escape. They are all forced to make
| their bones.
| GrayShade wrote:
| They won't. They want Russian support when they invade
| Taiwan.
| newuser94303 wrote:
| They don't need Russian support to attack Taiwan and
| Russian economic support is meaningless. They won't do it
| because there is no incentive to. The US has to bribe
| them. Think of China like an evil corporation. They won't
| do anything except for their own best interests. Like
| Facebook with nukes.
| loufe wrote:
| I don't think adding the tag of "evil" in front of
| corporation is necessary or helpful. Corporations are
| selfish and aggressive enough already. Nothing about
| China's geopolitical plotting is anymore evil than the US
| or Russia, regardless of what ideological non-sense you
| use to justify any corner.
| onlyrealcuzzo wrote:
| China can't invade Taiwan without Taiwan blowing up the
| Three Gorges Dam and wiping out 1/4th of China's
| population
| Terry_Roll wrote:
| Russia and China have developed their own equivalent of
| SWIFT, so again this is a sanction which will benefit
| Russia just like the oil price going up will benefit them
| because Russia has the largest oil reserves in the world.
|
| Plus with Chernobyl, some of the fuel rods may well be
| weapons grade still, and Chernobyl almost bankrupted
| Russia, it certainly helped break up the Soviet Union
| according to Gorbachev, its also on the border with Belarus
| who are aligned with Russia, and uranium fuel rods are not
| cheap to make, it takes tonnes of Uranium, so grabbing
| Chernobyl would seem sensible.
|
| So at this stage, I'm now thinking Russia is the next
| country to get a massive improvement in quality of life and
| infrastructure, a bit like we have seen with China over the
| last decade or so, whilst all the while the West is kept in
| the slow lane for other less developed countries to catch
| up.
| saiya-jin wrote:
| > I'm now thinking Russia is the next country to get a
| massive improvement in quality of life and infrastructure
|
| That's practically impossible. They could have done in in
| last 30 years, but almost all the profit went to pockets
| of Kremlin's pyramid of power and tunneled to tax havens
| across the world. Corruption, laziness, incompetence of
| key people, and in some form also in the rest of nation
| will effectively prevent that.
| elliekelly wrote:
| CIPS is not an "equivalent of SWIFT" by a long shot. It
| definitely helps soften the blow of any potential SWIFT
| sanctions but that doesn't mean losing SWIFT access would
| be a non-issue.
| inglor_cz wrote:
| Not even every financial weapon. EU isn't united on kicking
| Russia out of SWIFT.
| cure wrote:
| That was yesterday. Today, the situation is evolving
| quickly.
| kfarr wrote:
| That was _swift_ :P https://www.reddit.com/r/worldnews/co
| mments/t0epur/boris_joh...
| csee wrote:
| No it's not, Biden confirmed it now.
| saiya-jin wrote:
| Not sure why Germany has such a weak stance against
| Russia now. It can't be just because of oil and gas
| imports for sure. It must look supremely weak to any
| strongman like Putin, encouraging him to push for more
| since nobody ever gave a fuck about some political
| condemnations or blocking few bureaucrats, you don't
| store billions you stole on your name in the banks.
| ajuc wrote:
| Basically Germany and Italy don't want it. Cause of big
| financial investment in Russian businesses.
|
| Germany especially should really do some soul-searching.
| They are enabling Putin for the last few decades.
| StillBored wrote:
| And they have been stupidly playing politics and
| investing in "green energy" while buying ever more gas
| from Russia and shutting down their own energy
| independence.
|
| In the middle of the winter, economic sanctions have
| their hands basically tied. What is Europe going to do?
| Turn off the gas? I don't think so.
|
| Maybe at least France will stop D%#$ing around and finish
| their reactor. The only question is can Putin put down
| the insurrections in Ukraine faster than the rest of
| Europe can untangle their energy dependence, or will it
| just be another Crimea where everyone forgets about it in
| a year or two, and Putin can pull it off somewhere else
| in another 5 years.
| ajuc wrote:
| Green energy is fine, it actually reduces the total
| amount bought from Putin (and thus invested into Russian
| army). The problem was disabling the non-fossil-fuel
| baseload (meaning nuclear powerplants). It was criminally
| idiotic. I hope Germany finally wakes up because this is
| making the whole EU project look less and less feasible.
| xenocratus wrote:
| > Cause of big financial investment in Russian businesses
|
| And because blocking them from some technology that the
| West has monopoly over will invite a strong(er) drive
| from the likes of China and Russia to create a competitor
| and weaken the West's power in that field.
| kblev wrote:
| It's good that Iraq and Afghanistan was worth a war, just
| Ukraine not so much
| hutzlibu wrote:
| It is a bit easier fighting caveman jihadist and third
| class dictators with outdated military, than a nuclear
| superpower.
| [deleted]
| MisterTea wrote:
| > superpower.
|
| Yup. Because when I think of superpower I think of an
| economy that is barely passing Italy's.
| pirate787 wrote:
| They have 2 million men under arms and the world's
| largest stockpile of nuclear weapons.
| hutzlibu wrote:
| Power comes in many shapes. Russia does not have a good
| economy, but a strong military and nukes.
| ejb999 wrote:
| and more importantly, the willingness to sacrifice
| millions of their own people if they need to. They have
| done it before, and if needed, I have no doubt they will
| do it again.
| somesortofthing wrote:
| The EU and US have made serious mistakes in the process but
| it's hard to disagree with that conclusion. Either you have a
| fairly short(By necessity, since Ukraine is going to remain
| crossable with armor for maybe a couple more weeks before the
| entire country turns into a giant bog in spring) proxy war in
| Ukraine that kills a few thousand and transfers the territory
| from one bickering cabal of oligarchs to another or you risk
| global nuclear war with boots-on-the-ground intervention.
| Putin has been pretty clear that he'll use nukes in the event
| of a full NATO intervention.
| trzy wrote:
| I would treat threats of nuclear weapons as bluffs. He
| doesn't want to perish in an inferno and a first strike is
| hard to justify over a mere military humiliation on foreign
| soil. Rather more likely are cyber attacks on
| infrastructure here in the US and attacks on US bases in
| Europe or abroad.
| Phelinofist wrote:
| And if he is not bluffing? :)
| robbedpeter wrote:
| odiroot wrote:
| > EU and US will use every diplomatic and financial weapon
| against Russia
|
| [Citation needed]
|
| The softening of sanctions has arrived already.
| f311a wrote:
| Russia has nuclear power. That's the main reason.
| [deleted]
| ncallaway wrote:
| The EU and America have promised to help with economic
| sanctions on Russia and by providing military aid and lethal
| aid.
|
| The EU and America have explicitly not promised to help out
| with direct military action against Russia. The United States
| and Biden have said multiple times that the US will not have
| forces engage Russia directly in Ukraine.
|
| What specific promises are you referring to?
| shawn-butler wrote:
| The US makes empty promises. Read the Budapest memorandum in
| which we made security guarantees so Ukraine would give up
| its nuclear arsenal[0]. Russian aggression would certainly be
| much more calculated if Ukraine still had that capability.
|
| [0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Budapest_Memorandum_on_Sec
| urit...
| jaywalk wrote:
| > Ukraine had physical, but not operational, control.
|
| What could they have done, throw the unarmed nukes at
| Russia? You also leave out the fact that Russia and the UK
| signed as well.
| adrian_b wrote:
| When you have nuclear weapons in your possession,
| obviously you will not be able to discover how to
| detonate them in an hour or a day.
|
| Nevertheless when you have the resources of a state, it
| is very easy to disassemble them and discover, in a few
| weeks or months at most, how to replace the part that
| initiates detonation with one that you control.
| fancifalmanima wrote:
| If you look at what was actually agreed to, it seems like
| the US and EU are already doing more than obligated. I
| don't see any nuclear weapons being used, the west has
| respected their sovereignty, and is even economically
| sanctioning Russia and providing intelligence and
| equipment. Bringing this to the security council would do
| nothing anyways, as Russia is a part of it and any
| resolution would just get vetoed. The only party that's
| actually breached the agreement is Russia.
| Respect Belarusian, Kazakh and Ukrainian independence and
| sovereignty in the existing borders.[17] Refrain
| from the threat or the use of force against Belarus,
| Kazakhstan and Ukraine. Refrain from using economic
| pressure on Belarus, Kazakhstan and Ukraine to influence
| their politics. Seek immediate Security Council
| action to provide assistance to Belarus, Kazakhstan and
| Ukraine if they "should become a victim of an act of
| aggression or an object of a threat of aggression in which
| nuclear weapons are used". Refrain from the use of
| nuclear arms against Belarus, Kazakhstan and Ukraine.
| Consult with one another if questions arise regarding those
| commitments.[13][18]
| pdabbadabba wrote:
| This seems like nonsense to me. What "security guarantees"?
|
| 1. "[T]o respect the independence and sovereignty and the
| existing borders of Ukraine." Only Russia seems to have
| violated that one.
|
| 2. To "reaffirm their obligation to refrain from the threat
| or use of force against the territorial integrity or
| political independence of Ukraine, and that none of their
| weapons will ever be used against Ukraine except in self-
| defence or otherwise in accordance with the Charter of the
| United Nations." Same. The only one breaking this promise
| is Russia.
|
| 3. "[T]o refrain from economic coercion designed to
| subordinate to their own interest the exercise by Ukraine
| of the rights inherent in its sovereignty and thus to
| secure advantages of any kind." Haven't seen anyone claim
| that any party has violated this one.
|
| 4. "[T]o seek immediate United Nations Security Council
| action to provide assistance to Ukraine." Again, I think
| only Russia has broken this promise.
|
| 5. "[N]ot to use nuclear weapons against any non-nuclear
| weapon State party to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation
| of Nuclear Weapons." So far so good.
|
| 6. To "consult in the event a situation arises that raises
| a question concerning these commitments." OK.
|
| Read the memorandum for yourself if you think I'm quoting
| selectively. It's short.: https://web.archive.org/web/20170
| 312052208/http://www.cfr.or...
| djrogers wrote:
| >. What specific promises are you referring to?
|
| The Budapest Memorandum. 1994 wasn't _that_ long ago...
| pdabbadabba wrote:
| Still not very specific. Or correct, as far as I can see.
|
| Here is the text of the memorandum: https://web.archive.org
| /web/20170312052208/http://www.cfr.or...
|
| Can you point us to the provision that you claim the
| U.S./Europe have violated? It is only about 1-2 pages long,
| so I don't think this is too much to ask.
| newaccount2021 wrote:
| EU is incapable and the US doesn't have near enough assets
| nearby
|
| in any case, Putin would likely respond with a nuke (he already
| basically hinted this), this is an endgame for everyone,
| Ukraine, Russia, Putin...there will be no de-escalation or
| peace process. Putin already said Ukraine "does not need to
| exist"...either the Ukrainians can fight him off or not.
| Probably not. Sanctions won't matter. Scolding Putin at the UN
| won't matter. China will golf-clap the whole thing. By the end
| of 2022, the only issue will be when the West just recognizes
| the new borders or not.
| mrtranscendence wrote:
| Putin responding with a nuke would be suicide. Maybe literal
| suicide. He's surely not _that_ stupid?
| yaris wrote:
| Maybe he is not stupid, but there are hints that his
| contact with reality is becoming somewhat unstable.
| simonklitj wrote:
| sveme wrote:
| I doubt that Russia can hold Ukraine for long. Once Putin is
| gone, everything he accomplished will fade away quickly.
| TameAntelope wrote:
| Ukraine isn't part of NATO, I think it's a big reason why troop
| deployment hasn't happened.
| sonicggg wrote:
| Not the reason though. Kosovo was not a part of NATO either.
| It's just that Russia is not Serbia.
| TameAntelope wrote:
| Vietnam wasn't part of NATO either, I guess if we're just
| pointing things out.
| sonicggg wrote:
| Gosh, you're dumb. Vietnam was not invaded by NATO, it
| was just the US.
|
| NATO was officially the one bombing Serbia, however.
| netsharc wrote:
| Even if they were, what's easier, to honour such an agreement
| with an expensive (materially and in terms of human lives)
| and dangerous (would cause the conflict so spread) deployment
| or to say "Sorry, you're going to have to tough it out
| yourself.".
|
| The USA and UK already abandoned the Afghani people, feels
| like the once mighty US military really doesn't want to be in
| a shooting war against Russia. As someone living in Europe, I
| would also be wary of how it would escalate if NATO got
| involved.
| outside1234 wrote:
| The US will defend NATO. They will nuke Russia's forces if
| they try to enter Poland. There is no doubt in my mind that
| is a red line.
| jaywalk wrote:
| There should always be plenty of doubt in your mind if
| you're saying that the US will use nukes in any situation
| short of someone else using them first.
| gambiting wrote:
| The difference is that US is actually putting their
| troops and equipment in Poland though. I also think that
| attack on Poland would trigger full out response by US.
| the_snooze wrote:
| Poland is a NATO state. An attack on Poland would trigger
| World War 3 because the whole alliance is set up to jump
| in.
| LudwigNagasena wrote:
| The US is the only country that used nukes.
| pirate787 wrote:
| Among other things, those experimental first bombs were a
| totally different class of weapons from today's nuclear
| arsenal. There were conventional bombings in WWII that
| killed more people than the nuclear bombings.
| JohnBooty wrote:
| This isn't even a remotely similar situation. The biggest
| difference is that last time around, we were the only
| people with nukes and (agree with the decision, or not)
| it was a war _ending_ use of nukes, with zero chance of
| _starting_ a world war, nuclear or otherwise.
| gumby wrote:
| The UK is the only other nuclear power to have detonated
| nukes on the territory of another country.
| jaywalk wrote:
| Completely irrelevant.
| jacquesm wrote:
| No, in fact very relevant. Not in the way the OP probably
| meant it though.
| gumby wrote:
| The US has explicitly refused to adopt a no first use
| posture.
|
| Ditto Russia, UK, France, the other nuclear powers
| involved.
|
| That being said, it's a Rubicon all, will be reluctant to
| cross.
| bombcar wrote:
| The US will defend NATO unless it feels it isn't the best
| thing to do at the time.
| rocqua wrote:
| They will definitely defend Poland. They won't nuke, not
| even tactically.
| Thaxll wrote:
| Putin would have never invaded a NATO country.
| netsharc wrote:
| Feels like until 5AM local this morning we all thought
| he'd never do a full invasion of Ukraine either...
|
| But in general I'd agree with you. On the other hand, who
| and literally what army would stop them?
| heartbreak wrote:
| > Who and literally what army would stop them?
|
| Among several others, the United States military. Which,
| contrary to claims made elsewhere in this thread, is a
| pretty formidable defensive force. In fact, it even has
| aircraft carriers that can move under their own power.
| bcrosby95 wrote:
| > Even if they were
|
| You would have to weigh how things would escalate if NATO
| got involved, vs how things would escalate if Russia found
| out NATO isn't actually a thing any country intends to
| honor.
| notjustanymike wrote:
| injb wrote:
| I think this is mainly a psychological move. It has people
| talking about nuclear fallout, radiation etc. That's the point.
| Lammy wrote:
| The most interesting part of Chernobyl to me isn't even the
| power plant, but what it was powering:
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duga_radar
| qbasic_forever wrote:
| Yeah the site is a massive liability for whoever controls it.
| There's a ton of work left to do to fully decommission it and
| make it safe.
| spywaregorilla wrote:
| What if, and bear with me, Russia doesn't care about safety?
| moffkalast wrote:
| It does pose the question what would actually happen should
| someone bomb the sarcophagus.
| rocqua wrote:
| Unless the prevailing winds are really blowing towards the
| west, this would harm Russia and their newly conquered
| territory much more than it would harm the EU.
|
| It makes more sense as a bargaining chip with Ukraine than as
| a chip with the EU.
| awb wrote:
| > It makes more sense as a bargaining chip with Ukraine
|
| What's the proposition? Russia's already committed to
| ending the idea of Ukraine as a country.
| rocqua wrote:
| Should they fail a complete takeover they can threaten to
| blow up the fallout in negotiations.
| ejb999 wrote:
| Probably not a bad idea to put all your troops and equipment
| stockpiles near an area that just about everyone is going to be
| reluctant to bomb indiscriminately - nobody wants to accidentally
| destroy that shell protecting that nuclear power plant I would
| imagine.
| swyx wrote:
| is this the same plant as the one from 1986? this plant is
| still active today? im very surprised.
| ciex wrote:
| When a nuclear power plant has a failure as catastrophic as
| that in Chernobyl it is active (radioactive) for a _very_
| long time, with no way of shutting it down. The immediate
| site of the power plant will be uninhabitable for about
| 20,000 years, however, the wider area might become safe to
| live in in just a couple of hundred years. While radiation
| levels decrease in general, there have also been measurements
| of increasing radiation in 2021.
| sidewndr46 wrote:
| No, the current structure is from 2018
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chernobyl_New_Safe_Confinement
| curtisblaine wrote:
| Not active, but actively contained.
| officeplant wrote:
| The other three reactors there were operational until 2000.
| paulus_magnus2 wrote:
| We in the The West have some serious soul searching to do.
|
| A nuclear power has attacked a sovereign state and told us to
| stay away or something very bad will happen.
|
| They've been sabre rattling for weeks and weeks and we have
| frozen unable (or unwilling) to act. No good deed goes
| unpunished, every sanction has a cost etc etc but we're not ready
| to pay even a smallest price in order to save lives protect world
| peace. Or to save "western values" our leaders are wording at
| each opportunity.
|
| If we really wanted to stop the invasion we'd send half a million
| soldiers to "hang around" in Ukraine weeks ago. Or at least we'd
| send them thousands of anti helicopter and antitank missiles. We
| cannot prevent Russia's bombing and destruction of Ukraine but
| the missiles would easily stop an invasion.
|
| Russia is a country with extremely concentrated wealth and
| therefore power - the oligarchs are one of the few leverage
| points we have. If we temporarily froze (right now confisction
| would be more appropriate) assets owned by oligarchs in the west,
| deplatform them from payment systems, credit cards, universities,
| golden visas. Capture their yahts, jets they'd take care of Putin
| rather quickly. We know who they are, they're on the Forbes list
| posing for pictures.
|
| Somehow we in the west eagerly go after the weak (Ottawa
| protesters) but cannot seam to do the same towards rich (with
| power and means to corrupt).
|
| The rules based Western world has gone out of the window and
| we're quickly heading towards a world with two sets of rules (or
| rather two standards of rule enforcement).
| rhexs wrote:
| Go send your own children to die first.
| pbourke wrote:
| > Or at least we'd send them thousands of anti helicopter and
| antitank missiles
|
| That happened - the UK sent 2000 NLAW anti-tank missiles and
| the US sent Javelins.
| w0de0 wrote:
| I agree our nations have done less than everything that could
| be done. I do think we've done quite better than could have
| been hoped around 2016.
|
| I believe your moral certainty is quite flawed:
|
| 1. It rests entirely on hindsight.
|
| These events only started seeming inevitable about 24 hours
| ago.
|
| Now we've found them to be true, we trust and are even
| impressed by the Americans' warnings. But these last weeks I
| little doubt the Bundestag's halls, and European couches
| everywhere, heard many recollections of Iraq's supposed WMD
| program.
|
| 2. You advocate a purely moral policy.
|
| There's a quiet part in every happy Westerner's mind that
| believes, without examination, in the ultimate and inevitable
| triumph of good over evil. To be fair, the past few generations
| experienced reassuring evidence for this assumption - and
| Hollywood keeps the reassurance alive.
|
| Unfortunately, the good guys do not always win; moral will
| cannot overcome geopolitical reality. Neither Realpolitik nor
| MAD were made defunct by 20 years of Pax Americana.
|
| Ukraine is Russia's neighbor. Ukraine is very much Russia's
| family: brothers who long cohabited. Ukraine's attitude towards
| Russia is legitimately a vital interest of Russia. Russia has,
| by right of force (Realpolitik!), complete dominance to act in
| Ukraine. Deterrence was always the only realistic option.
|
| 500,000 Western soldiers <500m from Moscow would be both target
| for, and, perhaps, sufficient justification in Russians
| citizens' eyes for the use of, tactical nukes.
|
| 3. It is unrealistic about how democracies work. Only the
| aggression your proposed policy is meant to prevent would be
| sufficient to convince democracies to implement it: an
| unfortunate catch-22.
|
| Democracies are extremely reluctant to go to war, which is
| good. The price paid is inevitably foolishness in global power
| politics. Roosevelt could not have started a pre-emptive war
| with Japan, though perhaps this would have been the optimal
| move.
|
| Similarly, there is no chance that, in the context of 20 years
| of unbroken peace, any Nato member would be interested in such
| a massive deployment directly next to Moscow. No scenario would
| have allowed this risk.
|
| If it did somehow happen, Russia's aggressive response could
| easily divide the alliance in recrimination for implementing
| such a reckless policy.
| jl6 wrote:
| I guess this indicates that Russia intends to completely subdue
| Ukraine and back it into a corner. In such a scenario, a
| desperate Ukraine government could wield the plant as leverage by
| threatening some catastrophe. By removing it from their hands,
| Ukraine is denied this weapon of last resort.
|
| And Russia gains another weapon of last resort, should anyone
| think of putting them in the same position.
| BurningFrog wrote:
| I fail to imagine how the reactor could practically be used as
| a weapon.
| jl6 wrote:
| Scorched Earth. Ukraine decides the only tactic left is to
| deny its enemy use of the area++.
| hamburga wrote:
| If you're looking for some background on the big picture and
| strategic goals of Russia and NATO/US, I just watched this (from
| U Chicago political scientist John Meirsheimer) and found it to
| be extremely helpful: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JrMiSQAGOS4
| BTCOG wrote:
| Western sanctions will do absolutely nothing but push Putin
| further into considering invading other neighboring nations. He's
| going to reform the Soviet Union. The president in Nicaragua has
| reportedly told able-bodied 18-45 year old men to prepare to
| support the Russian Federation in freeing people in Ukraine.
|
| This is going to spiral out of control, and talking will do
| nothing.
| lend000 wrote:
| It's hard to view the events unfolding with an objective gaze.
| Virtually all of western journalism condemns Russia's attacks
| unilaterally, which seems reasonable, considering people are
| dying to grow a dictator's empire. But then I read about the
| history of the conflict and see that Ukraine has had separatist
| states and civil war for years. It isn't like Ukraine is a
| stable, peaceful, and unwitting nation, like, say, Denmark. It's
| more similar to NATO "protecting" their national interests in
| Syria or Iraq. Not that I supported those interventions as
| ethical, either -- I just acknowledge the potential long term
| geopolitical motivations for doing so.
|
| Any Ukrainians or Russians have an alternative perspective to
| offer?
| dostick wrote:
| Dont project "separatist" feudal states of 100s year ago on to
| modern Ukraine. Modern Ukraine is nothing like that.
| crisdux wrote:
| This isn't a Ukrainian or Russian perspective, but an
| alternative perspective.
|
| John Mearsheimer gives a popular alternative perspective. He
| has a realist foreign policy perspective suggesting that the US
| and the west provoked Russia by trying to push Ukraine to join
| NATO and by intervening in the protests/coup in 2013/2014.
| Russia has a legitimate security interest in ensuring Ukraine
| does not join NATO and become militarized.
|
| https://www.mearsheimer.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/06/Why-t...
| hamburga wrote:
| Video lecture from Mearsheimer, for the lazy:
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JrMiSQAGOS4
| Ruphin wrote:
| The idea that the (in)stability of a nation can legitimize
| military incursion by another nation is plain absurd. At what
| point exactly does a war become legitimate? Is it okay to
| attack a country when they are entwined in civil war? What
| percentage of the country needs to be involved in the conflict?
| What if it is an unarmed but still major internal political
| conflict?
|
| No war is legitimate.
|
| Comparing this incursion to NATO "protecting" their national
| interests in Syria or Iraq is perhaps defensible, but the only
| logical conclusion is that these interventions were/are equally
| condemnable.
| lend000 wrote:
| No one said it was legitimate insofar as that means ethical.
| I am simply curious about the huge wave of groupthink
| sentiment that makes no attempt to fill everyone in on the
| context of the situation, and whether this was actually a
| logical (absence all ethics) move by Russia. One of the
| replies to my comment offered an interesting perspective. We
| live in a real world with real events. Just because us
| westerners have been shielded from war for most of our lives,
| and because war is immoral, does not mean that it won't
| happen, or that it isn't interesting to think about it
| objectively.
|
| Makes one wonder if the fact that most Ukrainians are white
| people living in an industrialized society has anything to do
| with the scale of the outpouring of emotion on HN and
| elsewhere.
| pishpash wrote:
| That's the thing. There is a war going on between Saudi
| Arabia and Yemen, and Syria is still festering. Nobody
| seems to care.
| awb wrote:
| > But then I read about the history of the conflict and see
| that Ukraine has had separatist states and civil war for years.
|
| Ukraine voted 90+% in favor of independence from Russia back in
| the 1991, with 82% of the electorate participating:
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Declaration_of_Independence_of...
|
| Since Putin came to power, he's worked hard to expand Russia's
| influence outside of it's current borders and back towards it's
| former USSR or Russian Empire borders. This includes
| propaganda, instigating rebellions, etc.
|
| The "civil war" in Ukraine, started after a pro-Russian
| President was ousted, and without direct influence over
| Ukraine, Russia has been fighting a proxy war in the separatist
| regions.
|
| > It isn't like Ukraine is a stable, peaceful, and unwitting
| nation, like, say, Denmark.
|
| Russia is claiming that the people of Ukraine are Russian
| speaking and historically belong integrated with Russia.
|
| It's like Mexico saying they want the Southwest US back.
| Historically it was part of Mexico, has many Spanish speakers,
| etc.
|
| But where does this stop? What if Italy wants to recreate the
| Roman Empire or the UK wants to re-establish the British
| Empire? It's really bizarre to look backwards in time, as there
| are 30 year olds in Ukraine with kids of their own now who were
| never alive during the USSR and know nothing but Ukrainian
| independence.
|
| Ideally as a world, we allow people the right to self-
| determination. But every superpower I can think of throughout
| history is guilty of influencing (or attacking) foreign
| countries for political and military advantage and
| manufacturing any reason imaginable to justify it.
| stickfigure wrote:
| Is there any strategic significance to this? I thought it was
| closed?
| shiado wrote:
| Theoretically the whole area could be turned into a dirty bomb
| with a few strategic strikes and it would be carried down a
| river destroying vast areas of Ukraine for millennia.
| prodmerc wrote:
| gjsman-1000 wrote:
| True - but Russia has nuclear weapons which are more precise
| and would send the strongest possible message. This is also
| important because destroying a country might land you a
| victory, but if it's destroyed, that is a shallow victory. A
| well-placed nuke is scary and controlled.
| bcrosby95 wrote:
| Russia would never nuke Ukraine because of the reaction
| from the West. Using existing radioactive materials
| wouldn't provoke the same reaction.
|
| I'm not saying Russia will do anything here, but the two
| are very different from a geopolitical standpoint.
| Sebb767 wrote:
| If Russia really wanted to create nuclear fallout problems,
| they have weapons that do so far more targeted and
| effectively.
| dathinab wrote:
| But they can't "easily" blame such Weapon usage on the EU
| (saying they accidentally caused it) or "Ukraine"
| terrorists.
| protomyth wrote:
| I assume its to make sure no one in the Ukraine makes a
| dirty bomb, not the other way around. Revenge is a powerful
| motivator and Chernobyl has the raw materials to make for a
| horrific revenge.
| Hamuko wrote:
| It'd be easier to cover up by claiming it was an accident
| or they were fired on by the Ukranians. You don't really
| have the same leeway when you drop a nuke.
| [deleted]
| BitwiseFool wrote:
| It is actually deviously brilliant. No one wants to shell the
| area because it would release all the dust and radionuclides
| that were buried during the cleanup.
|
| It is a perfect staging area because the downside to attacking
| it is so high. No allied forces in Europe want to deal with the
| fallout - literally.
|
| This is so genius I'm genuinely in awe. This is right out of
| Sun Tzu: "The art of war teaches us to rely not on the
| likelihood of the enemy's not coming, but on our own readiness
| to receive him; not on the chance of his not attacking, but
| _rather on the fact that we have made our position
| unassailable._ "
| systemvoltage wrote:
| Unless they're literally housed inside the containment
| building, this is useless against precision guided missiles
| and bombs. Are you talking about deterrence to nuclear
| bombing of Chernobyl? Then it is a moot point because the
| fallout from the weapon itself would dwarf the dormant
| fissile material in the containment facility.
|
| Sorry, but this makes no sense. If Russia wants to deter EU
| with fallout, they already have such a mechanism - their
| massive stockpile of nuclear weapons to deter aggression by
| EU.
| Freestyler_3 wrote:
| I think a nuclear bomb and a nuclear power plant are very
| different and have different halftimes.
| jaywalk wrote:
| Halflife is the word you're looking for, but they're not
| so different in terms of halflife. Although a nuclear
| bomb would be _way worse_.
| BitwiseFool wrote:
| No this doesn't have anything to do with Nuclear Weapon
| deterrence. Much of the liquidation effort was literally
| burying contaminated topsoil in the area. The explosions
| from conventional bombs would kick radioactive particles
| back up into the atmosphere. Europe probably does not want
| to deal with that, so I imagine they will refrain from
| attacking directly.
| systemvoltage wrote:
| If I understand correctly, your central thesis is about
| deterring EU from attacking. It misses the point that
| Russia already has a huge stockpile of nuclear weapons to
| deter EU from attacking them. So, why would they rely on
| an 'offchance' 2nd-hand threat of fallout when they can
| just threaten to use their guaranteed-to-deter stockpile
| of weapons?
| rocqua wrote:
| I think the thesis is to prevent Ukraine from attacking
| the staging area. Giving them a really safe base.
| BitwiseFool wrote:
| I think I'm using "Allied Forces" and "Europeans" too
| loosely. I was lumping Ukrainian forces into that label.
| They're already under attack so any conventional
| retaliation on invading forces is already a given. I'm
| basically saying that NATO/EU would put pressure on
| Ukraine NOT to attack the staging area because any
| fallout could waft over into Western Europe. This is in
| addition to the already present downside of Ukraine re-
| contaminating their own backyard.
| systemvoltage wrote:
| I see, it's an important distinction. I would agree,
| Ukrainian military would face some deterrence.
| juliansimioni wrote:
| I would imagine that even a small conventional bomb landing
| anywhere within a few miles of Chernobyl would unearth and
| spread contamination.
|
| I remember reading somewhere that all the ground was full
| of small radioactive particles in the area surrounding
| Chernobyl. So basically what they had to do was dig up the
| first few feet of dirt and flip it over, burying the
| contaminated dirt. Any small bomb would undo that. Then the
| wind would carry it and we'd have a whole mess.
| stickfigure wrote:
| If that is true, then every explosion contaminates the
| vehicles and personnel staged in the immediate vicinity.
| Doesn't sound so brilliant to me.
| [deleted]
| BitwiseFool wrote:
| True, but the Russians are also counting on the idea that
| Ukrainian forces do not want to release that fallout back
| on to their own territory and that European forces do not
| want radioactive particles wafting back over into
| continental Europe.
|
| Russia has calculated that while an attack would be bad for
| the Russian forces at Chernobyl, it would actually be much
| worse for the allied forces.
| awb wrote:
| > True, but the Russians are also counting on the idea
| that Ukrainian forces do not want to release that fallout
| back on to their own territory
|
| Unless there is no Ukraine. Blowing it up is the closest
| thing Ukraine has to a nuke and it would take out any
| troops stationed there. It would be a horrific thing to
| do though and I don't think the Ukrainian leadership has
| the demeanor to do it.
| firebaze wrote:
| Russian military generally played wars with an assumed unit
| cost of approximately zero. They still appear to do so,
| despite the declining birth rate (there's a reason russian
| roulette is called as it is)
| throwawaymanbot wrote:
| moffkalast wrote:
| Well he invented fighting, and he perfected it so that no
| living man could best him in the ring of honour.
|
| Then he used his fight money to buy two of every animal on
| Earth, and then he herded them onto a boat, and then he beat
| the crap out of every single one...
| kingcharles wrote:
| I'm so confused by this comment... o_O
| progman32 wrote:
| That's because we're engineers, and we solve problems.
| moffkalast wrote:
| Not problems like 'what is beauty' because that would
| fall within the purview of your conundrums of philosophy.
|
| We solve practical problems.
| TheBozzCL wrote:
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h42d0WHRSck
| TheBozzCL wrote:
| And from that day forward, any time a bunch of animals are
| together in one place it's called a 'zoo'.
|
| Unless it's a farm, of course.
| cdelsolar wrote:
| prodmerc wrote:
| thow-58d4e8b wrote:
| Chernobyl sarcophagus is a massive pile of concrete -
| basically indestructible. Buildings made of concrete are
| ridiculously resilient to explosions - remember the Beirut
| explosion? That grain silo right next to the epicenter was
| still standing
|
| Berlin has some flak towers from WW2, quoting Wikipedia:
|
| The Soviets, in their assault on Berlin, found it difficult
| to inflict significant damage on the flak towers, even with
| some of the largest Soviet guns, such as the 203 mm M1931
| howitzers. After the war, the demolition of the towers was
| often considered not feasible and many remain to this day
| BitwiseFool wrote:
| While the Sarcophagus and New Safe Confinement structure
| around the reactor contains the worst of the fallout, most
| of the contamination in the surrounding area was simply
| buried underground using bulldozers and earth-moving
| equipment. Explosions risk kicking up that contamination
| from the soil.
| donkeyd wrote:
| You underestimate the amount of nuclear material that's
| still in the ground around there. Vaporizing that isn't a
| great idea.
| seizethegdgap wrote:
| > Chernobyl sarcophagus is a massive pile of concrete -
| basically indestructible.
|
| This is such an hilariously uneducated take that it has to
| be trolling.
|
| Let's set aside the facts that the sarcophagus' 20-30 year
| estimated lifetime has already expired, and has previously
| partially collapsed, and has had to be replaced by the New
| Safe Confinement structure. A stray artillery shell will
| tear apart any 36 year old building that was structurally
| weakened by an explosion, concrete or not.
| firebaze wrote:
| This is wrong on so many levels, it's almost right again.
| qbasic_forever wrote:
| Chernobyl's containment is not massive concrete, and cannot
| sustain a hit from a bomb in any way. The new safe
| containment structure is metal and air, it's meant to
| contain dust as the reactor building inside is dismantled.
| Watch this to learn all about it:
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mdnutU2m71o
|
| The old sarcophagus that was build in 1986 only had
| concrete walls in a few key places. Much of it had huge
| holes and open areas covered in sheet metal. All of it was
| falling apart and rapidly deteriorating when construction
| on new safe containment started.
|
| And remember there are 3 other reactor buildings at the
| site and none of them are covered by the containment
| structure or really any protection (Chernobyl's Soviet era
| design which lacks a concrete containment structure is
| partly why its meltdown was so catastrophic). The site
| cannot withstand any attack.
| gmuslera wrote:
| To mine unobtanium, by now it should be enough of it there.
| uuav wrote:
| Having news reports about Russian control over Chernobyl is
| enough to scare a good chunk of European population.
| agumonkey wrote:
| this whole event smells like a hooligan drive-by and not a
| planned military operation, too many dirty tricks
| ojbyrne wrote:
| Really? To me it seems very well planned, but with tons of
| disinformation to make potential opponents hesitate to act
| as much as possible.
| dathinab wrote:
| That's what war is about. (acting strategic)
|
| That's how Hitler was initially so military successful.
|
| Act hard, ruthless and be done before the (main) enemy
| realizes what hit their ally.
|
| EDIT: Not saying it's ethical to do so.
| agumonkey wrote:
| I get it, I'm not naive.. I'm saying it looks dirty as in
| dumb/reckless, not efficient. But I may be wrong.
| jazzyjackson wrote:
| Do what the enemy thinks you are too smart to do.
| dokem wrote:
| Dirty tricks? In war? Unheard of.
| w0de0 wrote:
| The exclusion zone occupies the shortest route from Belarus to
| Kyiv.
| gjsman-1000 wrote:
| Yes - Chernobyl is inside the massive "Chernobyl Exclusion
| Zone," a zone which is conveniently only ~80 miles from the
| capital of Ukraine, and is just a wide swatch of empty land and
| abandoned buildings, perfect for parking military equipment.
| The radiation levels, though high compared to the rest of
| Ukraine, is low enough to not be a risk for their short-term
| stay.
| maybelsyrup wrote:
| Yeah the Russians now control the entire supply of Ukranian
| Airbnb Experiences
| shadowgovt wrote:
| Chernobyl was built near where power is consumed.
|
| It's only 81km up-river from Kyiv.
| madaxe_again wrote:
| Two strategic points off the top of my head:
|
| One, the railhead. Afaik it's operational and modern, as they
| used it for moving material for constructing the sarcophagus.
| Goes straight to Kiev. Makes for easy onwards transport of
| materiel from Belarus.
|
| Two, a gun to the head of Europe. They could threaten to
| destroy the containment, and/or to bomb the reactor building to
| aerosolise as much radioactive material as possible.
| asdff wrote:
| Why blow up a dirty bomb when they have 1000 real bombs?
| dathinab wrote:
| Additionally to what was already said in other threads
| about this:
|
| Why wast money?
| asdff wrote:
| Why do you care about saving money when you are planning
| on ending the world in the next hour?
| AitchEmArsey wrote:
| Nuking someone is a definitive, MAD-triggering event.
| Causing a radiological disaster "accidentally" would be
| entirely consistent with the "stop hitting yourself"
| diplomacy Russia has undertaken since moving against
| Ukraine in 2014.
| newuser94303 wrote:
| They won't blow up Chernobyl. Ukraine is a top grain
| exporting nation. Without wheat, Ukraine's economy would be
| even worse and there would be no way to feed the people.
| AmericanBlarney wrote:
| I don't think the second is realistic, as that might be
| considered an attack on NATO countries, which is likely not a
| scale of war Russia is looking for.
| Calavar wrote:
| > _Two, a gun to the head of Europe. They could threaten to
| destroy the containment, and /or to bomb the reactor building
| to aerosolise as much radioactive material as possible._
|
| If they wanted to go that extreme, they always had the option
| of just launching nukes. Capturing the reactor and blowing
| the sarcophagus just seems like a lot of needless extra
| steps.
| steve_adams_86 wrote:
| Maybe I read too much scifi, but can't nukes be intercepted
| in key locations? They might be able to land them in more
| remote places, but wouldn't hitting cities be difficult? I
| was under the impression developed nations have missile
| interception technologies. But yeah, I've read books not
| based in reality and watched some netflix in my days, so I
| could be in fantasy land. Kind of sobering to write this
| out and realize how clueless I am.
| jazzyjackson wrote:
| Aside from the numbers game, ICBMs used to be the fastest
| way to deliver a warhead, with the obvious drawback that
| anyone watching the horizon can see it coming from half a
| world away.
|
| Nuclear warheads have been further miniaturized since the
| cold war, it is now possible to fit them into cruise
| missiles.
|
| > The deployment of Kalibr missiles, long-range, low-
| flying, capable of carrying conventional or nuclear
| warheads, available in land-attack, anti-ship and anti-
| submarine variants, was said to have altered the military
| balance in Europe and potentially compromised the NATO
| missile defence system under construction in Europe. [0]
|
| There's also the rumored/propagandized hypersonic,
| nuclear powered cruise missiles (skyfall [1]) that are
| meant to defeat missile defense and circumvent MAD by
| enabling undetected first strike.
|
| [0] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Submarine-
| launched_cruise_mi...
|
| [1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/9M730_Burevestnik
|
| Disclaimer, I'm just a web developer with access to
| wikipedia yo
| unionpivo wrote:
| intercepting few (up to few dozen) missiles sure.
|
| Intercepting hundreds potentially thousands ? Not really.
| jcrawfordor wrote:
| The US and Russia long had a treaty which prohibited the
| development of anti-ballistic missile systems with narrow
| exceptions. While the treaty agreement effectively ended
| in 2002, it did effectively stop most ABM work in both
| countries for an extended period of time. Further, the
| problem has proven to be exceptionally difficult. The
| Strategic Defense Initiative, better known as "Star
| Wars," was an effort towards a comprehensive defense
| against nuclear ICBMs that was famously declared to be
| beyond the realm of the possible by some technical
| groups. While US ABM work as resumed in earnest over the
| last couple of decades or so, it remains an extremely
| hard problem and progress has been slow. The prominent
| GMD system, for example, has the ability to counter only
| "tens" of warheads (and at tremendous expense, having to
| fire many interceptors per inbound missile in order to
| raise the probability of success). Other systems like
| Aegis are generally even more limited.
|
| So while various countries do possess ABM systems with
| varying levels of efficacy, in general we could expect
| only a very small portion of inbound ICBMs to be
| successfully intercepted... if any. These types of
| systems have consistently under-performed expectations as
| field conditions prove to be more challenging than
| expected, and that's with limited knowledge of the
| countermeasures an adversary like Russia might employ.
| codezero wrote:
| Plausible deniability is a good reason not to use nukes.
| They could have a military accident, or blame a saboteur
| for some sort of weapons cache exploding in-situ and claim
| it was not intentional.
| ojbyrne wrote:
| It gives some deniability. "In desperation, the Ukrainian
| government has shelled the Chernobyl site."
| stickfigure wrote:
| > Two, a gun to the head of Europe. They could threaten to
| destroy the containment, and/or to bomb the reactor building
| to aerosolise as much radioactive material as possible.
|
| Does the wind only blow west? This seems pretty far fetched.
| dathinab wrote:
| Does Putin care, he will just say the West or Ukraine did
| so to hinder Russia and then use the damage to Russia as an
| excuse to act even more ruthless.
| dathinab wrote:
| It's a side you can't really bomb/air attack.
|
| It's a side both EU and Russia are worried about I think.
|
| Putin is afraid that Ukraine will somehow put together a form a
| nuclear bomb and use it "in desperation", and remainders in it
| could be used to build a dirty pseudo atom-bomb (or maybe we
| should call it radiation bomb).
|
| It's also is a nice path into the Ukrain with no
| civilians/camera etc. around to get in their way.
| janus wrote:
| You don't want to bomb the Chernobyl exclusion area.
|
| So it's a perfect place to station troops and military arsenal
| carabiner wrote:
| Can we skip to the good part? Ahhh, ahh ah ah.
| GabrielMtn wrote:
| Maybe tiktok or Instagram would be a better place for this
| comment.
| g45ylkjlk45y wrote:
| w0de0 wrote:
| This development is a tactical prerequisite for besieging or
| attacking Kyiv. The exclusion zone covers the shortest route to
| the city from Belarus - the shortest route available to Russian
| forces.
|
| It's also perhaps a strategic coup for Russia in two ways - but
| it could also be a boon to Ukraine. The coming days will
| elucidate which party most profits - probably Russia.
|
| Russia's first strategic gain is simply one of properly executed
| rapid maneuver armored warfare. They now hold a redoubt that is
| difficult to safely attack, threatens Kyiv and the entire Dnipro
| plain, and preemptively protects their politically weakest supply
| line, Belarus.
|
| Russia's second potential strategic boon here is more modern -
| they have seized an infowar high ground.
|
| The Financial Times this morning quotes an anonymous Russian
| security official claiming Chernobyl's occupation creates a
| potent psychological deterrent against both strategic escalation
| and subtle tactical interference from the West.
|
| The disaster of 86 looms large in the minds of European polities,
| especially the Nordics. Placing the radioactive zone in the
| battle space may chill European feet.
|
| And in American minds, Chernobyl is unavoidably associated with
| the USSR and memories of a more dangerous iteration of Russia. (I
| expect many on this side of the Atlantic think the plant is in
| Russia.) Occupying it elevates the danger and the power
| associated with Russia nearer to Cold War levels of respect,
| which is a fundamental goal of Putin's revanchism.
|
| However, in the Slavic societies of post-Soviet eastern Europe -
| including Russians themselves - Chernobyl connotes the corruption
| and failure of the USSR. Gorbachev himself blamed the Union's
| destruction entirely on the loss of scientific and nuclear
| prestige, and national confidence, engendered by the disaster.
|
| So Russia risks reminding all their former satellite peoples of
| the last empire's outcome. Ukraine's morale and propaganda may
| turn the loss into a victory - especially if the Nordics
| polities, and German citizenry, favor outrage over trepidation.
| In this pursuit, Zelensky spoke several hours ago with Sweden's
| PM about specifically the Chernobyl battle - and Ukraine's FM
| called it an "attack on Europe."
|
| I hope desperately that Ukraine gains greater European unity, and
| Russia gets further opprobrium among those Europeans who yet
| still take an understanding view of Putin's new imperialism.
|
| But I suspect the affair will on the whole benefit Russia. All
| else aside, it's clear they are fighting a conventional ground
| war. They need the hard tactical advantage of occupying this
| particular 1,000 square miles to win; even if they lose the
| information battle they have advanced their cause.
| marvin wrote:
| I don't understand your infowar reasoning at all. Pripyat and
| its immediate vicinity is just an unpopulated area with a
| decomissioned nuclear power station in it.
|
| Is the subtext that Putin plans to blow it up, or what? I'm
| pretty sure that attacking central Europe with a dirty bomb
| would make it very difficult for NATO to avoid invoking Article
| 5.
| w0de0 wrote:
| Is the subtext that Putin plans to blow it up, or what?
|
| Information war does not need a rational subtext - I suspect
| it is more effective when it hasn't any. Even better if
| multiple rationalities are all slightly plausible yet all
| slightly absurd.
|
| The fundamental tactic is to obscure truth with a flood of
| bullshit. One thus removes the surety of known & agreed facts
| from both the politics of enemy's polity and the planning of
| the enemy's military.
|
| With its rapidity, and its dynamic reaction the the enemy's
| information disposition, Russia's approach is to conventional
| propaganda what blitzkrieg was to trench warfare - largely
| the same tools, but radically different tactics. To stretch
| the analogy, the internet takes the tank's place as the key
| disruptive technology which both inspires and requires new
| tactics. I'm pretty sure that attacking
| central Europe with a dirty bomb would make it very difficult
| for NATO to avoid invoking Article 5.
|
| This threat is, I'm pretty sure, not intended. Russia already
| has enough nukes and Putin has already rather clearly
| threatened nuclear escalation if any nation "interferes."
| There is perhaps an implicit threat intended - "nice
| continent you got here - and, oh, look, Russia is now in
| charge of protecting its on-going habitability!"
|
| Think of it like this:
|
| Russia wants to be a respected great power. Putin's
| revisionist fantasy casts Russia as the primary arbiter of
| Europe's political order.
|
| Chernobyl is an on-going danger to the entire peninsula's
| safety. It must have a robust institutional custodian -
| perhaps for centuries to come. It may not be as dangerous,
| but that cannot be assumed, it must be proven conclusively
| (and even then concern will linger: democracies are quite
| skilled at turning society's vague, broadly-held fears into
| irrational policy).
|
| Therefore Europe cannot ostracize any polity controlling the
| exclusion zone indefinitely. The EU paid for the current
| sarcophagus: managing this risk is a vital interest of the
| entire Union.
|
| More broadly: fear need not be (and usually is not) rational
| in order to be acted upon - especially in democracies.
| Pripyat and its immediate vicinity is just an unpopulated
| area with a decomissioned nuclear power station in it.
|
| You are rational and informed, and perhaps correct (I don't
| know). As far as facts actually matter here, however, your
| analysis is incomplete.
|
| The exclusion zone is an unpopulated area with a
| decommissioned nuclear power plant *which happens to be
| directly between the Russian army and their objective*. Any
| conventional attack on Kyiv from Belarus must include this
| area - even if it was truly unexceptional.
|
| But the facts don't matter. "Chernobyl" is a totem in
| American and European minds. The very fact of this HN post's
| popularity attests such.
|
| Russian strategists hope, I think, that they can gain an edge
| by capturing the totem. They think to turn its symbolic
| meanings to their own ends.
|
| Ukrainians also hope to use Chernobyl's various meanings in
| the minds of their allies to their advantage, as a warning
| and an impetus for solidarity.
|
| Semiotic warfare, if you will!
| g45ylkjlk45y wrote:
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2022-02-24 23:00 UTC)