|
|
|
|
SYSTEM-J
IDKFA.
Registered: Sep 2003
Location: Manchester
|
|
quote: | Originally posted by Lira
Thanks, Swampstah!
All right, this is actually two entirely different claims, and I partially agree with the latter half for one simple reason: Russia wouldn't have to invade a NATO member state to invade Finland if they ever decide to join.
Since 2005, Russia has been known to destabilise and carve out buffer states in neighbouring countries with intensified NATO talks, prior to their entrance (that's how we ended up with Abkhazia, Donetsk, Luhansk, and South Ossetia after all), so the negotiations themselves would hang a bullseye on Finland's for a while. In a way, the Kremlin is already watching because it always has. |
As we've discussed, Russia simply does not have the military capacity to mount a full scale invasion of a second country while it remains embroiled in Ukraine, which is why now is the perfect time for Finland to get with the programme.
quote: | Now, regarding the nuclear strikes. I used a colourful hyperbole to drive my point home, as is my wont, but don't you reckon a blanket statement is a tad bit too strong? At this very moment, the use of any nuclear weapon is very unlikely, but remember "Russia won't invade Ukraine"? It wasn't an unreasonable position just a little over a fortnight ago (I myself thought it wasn't feasible until Putin's "Ukraine doesn't exist" speech), US Intel sounded nothing short of paranoid, and yet, here we are. The risk is definitely higher than zero, no need to push the envelope with a cavalier approach towards Russia. |
Russia invading Ukraine is of an entirely different magnitude of probability to a full scale nuclear war breaking out and annihilating Russia, NATO and everyone else. The outcome of every single exercise in game theory run by both sides is to avoid complete self-destruction.
quote: | Anyway, that's not a very good comparison because it's a very different context: the Cold War slowly evolved after a number of years, with a gradual escalation between two former allies that eventually fell out, which gave both sides the possibility to develop checks to avoid an accidental clashes. This is not the case just yet. |
That is exactly what has happened between NATO and Russia over the last 20 years.
___________________
Mixes:
> Back To Deep [Deep Trippy House]
> Terra Nova [Modern Progressive Trance]
> Rough & Ready [Modern Trance]
>A Different Energy [Good Modern Trance]
> The Edale Mix [Panoramic Beats]
|
|
Mar-13-2022 20:42
|
|
|
|
|
SYSTEM-J
IDKFA.
Registered: Sep 2003
Location: Manchester
|
|
|
Mar-13-2022 23:45
|
|
|
|
|
Lews
Platipus And Prog Addict
Registered: Feb 2007
Location: Hugging Whales And Saving Trees
|
|
|
Mar-14-2022 19:58
|
|
|
|
|
Lira
Ancient BassAddict
Registered: Nov 2001
Location: Brasília, Brazil
|
|
quote: | Originally posted by SYSTEM-J
As we've discussed, Russia simply does not have the military capacity to mount a full scale invasion of a second country while it remains embroiled in Ukraine, which is why now is the perfect time for Finland to get with the programme. |
Russia has proven, time and again, that they can play a weak hand extremely well.
From the meddling in US elections with troll farms to the "little green men" in Crimea, brute military force has been just one of the ways the Kremlin has sought to achieve its goals. We just can't ever know what is next.
quote: | Originally posted by SYSTEM-J
Russia invading Ukraine is of an entirely different magnitude of probability to a full scale nuclear war breaking out and annihilating Russia, NATO and everyone else. The outcome of every single exercise in game theory run by both sides is to avoid complete self-destruction. |
I'm in full agreement. However, as James M. Acton, the co-director of the Nuclear Policy Program at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, explains at length in a rather accessible podcast by FiveThirtyEight, and he explains the use of nuclear weapons is very unlikely - unless one of the belligerent parties is having a really bad loss (e.g. Russia feeling overwhelmed and outgunned would be an example) and judges that the deployment of a nuclear weapon might be preferable to an unfavourable outcome that could be perceived as more certain and qualitatively worse. Reason caution is advised, in his opinion.
Of course, it's not a consensus not even among experts, so I'm not saying the world will definitely end as in a Matt Maltese song. But, as there are still discussions by people who know about it way better than either of us, I'd be a tad bit more cautious about escalating the tension in the region. The pessimist may turn out to be right.
quote: | Originally posted by SYSTEM-J
That is exactly what has happened between NATO and Russia over the last 20 years. |
Has it? Between 2009 and 2011, there were a couple of joint military exercises between NATO and Russia, and that's about it. The Cold War started soon after the US and the USSR fought Nazi Germany as allies. The trust baseline started in very different levels, and I'm afraid Trump may even have had a negative impact, having left treaties like the Intermediate-range Nuclear Forces (INF) Treaty and nearly bungled the "New Start" renewals, raising distrust between the parties. I don't remember another American president being so reckless in the Cold War.
I could be mistaken though, so if there are more parallels, I can't remember them right now.
quote: | Originally posted by Lews
I think the whole question about the expansion of NATO rests on the counterfactual of what would have happened if NATO had not expanded. Would Russia be a peaceful, international law-abiding, prosperous democracy? Can anyone answer 'yes' with a straight face? |
I don't think anyone here said anything resembling that. The argument so far has been about military build-up and perceived threats.
quote: | Originally posted by Lews
Putin wants to create the old Tsarist Russia, not the USSR. Look more at the statements of the Russian Orthodox Church than NATO, if you want to understand his actions. |
No disagreements here either. Jack and I have both mentioned the Cold War at some point, but I believe we're in agreement when we both say this is not a USSR redux either.
quote: | Originally posted by Lews
At this point, blaming the expansion of NATO on this situation is just regurgitating Russian propaganda. |
Come on now, mate, really? I'd understand your being dismissive if I just typed a few ramblings away, and I'd be humble enough if this were the case. However, and I don't want to to appeal to authority or anything, would you really be willing to say John Mearsheimer is being something of a Kremlin mouthpiece, for example? He's been even more critical of NATO expansionism than I have in this thread, saying "[t]he West, and especially America, is principally responsible for the crisis"... and that's from The Economist, not the RT, so it's hardly a publication with a pro-Russia bias. I said what I said precisely because I've tried to get as broad a view as possible about this conflict since the annexation of Crimea, as I've explained I had my reasons to.
I have also, up to this moment, been citing and quoting experts whose opinion I believe we can all find unbiased and reliable, from Russian scholars critical of Putin to Western officials (I linked to a diplomatic cable by the current CIA director, then U.S. Ambassador to Moscow, a few posts back). If I'm not mistaken, I am the only one citing sources around here, aren't I?
I understand perfectly well JEO's "Fuck Leftist Westplaining" knee-jerk reaction as he's closer to St. Petersburg than I am to Rio. But, you have a PhD in political science. If you're going to say these these people and I are "just regurgitating Russian propaganda", I'm genuinely interested to know when Brookings (whose former senior fellow, Michael Mccgwire, I also quoted) became an agitprop institution... because that's the sort of person I'm referring to
___________________
Indiana Clones Upcoming Sets
[ I May Upload Something Someday ]
|
|
Mar-15-2022 22:44
|
|
|
|
|
SYSTEM-J
IDKFA.
Registered: Sep 2003
Location: Manchester
|
|
quote: | Originally posted by Lira
Russia has proven, time and again, that they can play a weak hand extremely well.
From the meddling in US elections with troll farms to the "little green men" in Crimea, brute military force has been just one of the ways the Kremlin has sought to achieve its goals. We just can't ever know what is next. |
Right, sure, okay. I think this whole point is just drifting now. If Finland join NATO, Russia will not invade and occupy them. I don't know exactly what you're suggesting they might do to Finland instead of invading them while Finland goes through the process of joining NATO, and I'm not sure you know either, but I think JEO and his countrymen will take a bit of cyber-terrorism over a full scale invasion.
quote: | Of course, it's not a consensus not even among experts, so I'm not saying the world will definitely end as in a Matt Maltese song. But, as there are still discussions by people who know about it way better than either of us, I'd be a tad bit more cautious about escalating the tension in the region. The pessimist may turn out to be right. |
Cutting through the back-and-forth in the article, the consensus they come to is this:
quote: | So, essentially, Russia is backstopping its conventional aggression with nuclear threats. Step 1: Invade your neighbors. Step 2: Threaten nuclear war to prevent outside interference that could reverse your conquest.
EA: That’s a better characterization. As the Georgetown University professor Caitlin Talmadge pointed out last week, the Russians are largely using their nuclear weapons as an umbrella, presuming that the stability-instability paradox—which suggests that states with nuclear weapons are even more likely to start a war, assuming that nuclear weapons will prevent the worst outcomes—will hold that and they’ll be able to get away with conventional military activity as a result.
But for the United States, the result is the same whether or not Russia says it out loud. The United States doesn’t have an interest in getting in a shooting war with Russia, particularly given the risks of nuclear escalation that come with it. There’s a reason why, during the Cold War, the superpowers typically kept conflict contained to proxies. |
This is pretty much exactly what I said in one of my very first posts, which you didn't move into this thread:
quote: | Originally posted by SYSTEM-J
There will be no direct conflict between NATO and Russia, that much is clear. The risk of escalation is far too high. |
Russia may use a limited nuclear strike in Ukraine if things go really badly for them, but frankly I would be fucking amazed if that ever happens. But Ukraine is not part of NATO and that won't result in a nuclear exchange. What I'm talking about is a full nuclear war between NATO and Russia, which essentially means mutual annihilation. That's not going to happen. Putin is ratcheting up the nuclear threat to ensure NATO don't actually deploy troops in Ukraine or institute a no fly zone or anything to that effect, and it will work because neither side wants to end the world. And I don't find your earlier, possibly hyperbolic, assertion than Finland has stayed out of NATO because they're scared of global thermonuclear war if they do join very credible. To me that line of reasoning is so self-evidently daft I just settled for a slightly weary "There's not going to be a nuclear war."
___________________
Mixes:
> Back To Deep [Deep Trippy House]
> Terra Nova [Modern Progressive Trance]
> Rough & Ready [Modern Trance]
>A Different Energy [Good Modern Trance]
> The Edale Mix [Panoramic Beats]
|
|
Mar-15-2022 23:15
|
|
|
|
|
planetaryplayer
Surpeme traineanddict
Registered: Dec 2011
Location: Pine Tree Valley
|
|
My gut is another dimension where thermonuclear war is happening right now. This dimension doesn’t have Armin von Bergen so there will be no peaceful resolution
|
|
Mar-16-2022 00:46
|
|
|
|
|
JEO
Supreme tranceaddict
Registered: Jan 2010
Location: ATH
|
|
quote: | Originally posted by Lira
If I'm not mistaken, I am the only one citing sources around here, aren't I? |
How about you put your sources away for a moment then. Lower yourself to my level and give me answers in a way I can understand.
-Given the world today, if you got to decide, would you have kept NATO from "expanding" to the former Warsaw Pact countries and/or the Baltic states?
-What do you feel would have been Russia's reaction if, after the USSR's collapse, these said countries expressed strong interest in integrating with the West and the West outright denied them?
-Why are the countries that didn't join NATO or didn't make it to the EU early enough the ones in Russia's sights now?
These questions might be slightly leading, but please, just tell me what you think.
If you won't arrive to the conclusion that we are all indeed better off with NATO having "expanded" than not, you might just be dismissing the whole of non-Russian Europe, where I think there are quite a few more experts who agree on NATO's "expansion" being a good thing than not.
I feel like you're complicating an issue that's now 100% clear to at least all of Russia's neighbors, if not the whole of Europe; it was absolutely necessary for all the current Eastern European NATO countries to join NATO for things to be as good as they are now, as opposed to how things probably would have been if they hadn't chosen to join. Even if it was NATO's expansion that lead to the conflict we see now, do you not think it was and is worth it?
My questions ultimately boil down to one question: would you rather have the current situation in Europe or have half of Europe as Russia's buffer states?
You are either in a strong alliance against Russia or forcibly kept from not being a part of it in some way.
And sorry for my vitriol towards you. I'm in a sort of proxy war against Russia myself, through people with opinions like yours.
Last edited by JEO on Mar-16-2022 at 01:50
|
|
Mar-16-2022 01:35
|
|
|
|
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 10:13.
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
Contact Us - return to tranceaddict
Powered by: Trance Music & vBulletin Forums
Copyright ©2000-2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Privacy Statement / DMCA
|