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 ]
|