Russia invades Ukraine

[PeteMoss]

Originally Posted by Mr.Coffee

Is that what is being proposed? They applied to NATO. Did they conditionally apply based on when this conflict is over? Is that clear? I haven’t seen it but I guess we can take your word for it.

I can only speak for me when I say - that is what I assumed. I'm sure Ukraine would want to join today and have the US get involved but I don't think anyone expects that scenario. If Ukraine is to join - it would have to be after the war.

[Mr.Coffee]

Originally Posted by Itse

No, this makes little sense. Mutual Assured Destruction. If moving countries under the NATO umbrella was a reason for Russia to nuke someone, they would have started that long ago.

Russia is also already fully and openly saying that they're in war against NATO over Ukraine.

I would in fact argue that what IS driving up the risk of nuclear war is allowing the situation to become this prolonged and letting it escalate slowly. The longer nations are at war, the lower their inhibitions are to do everything in their power to win. Carpet bombing, fire bombing and finally nuking cities wasn't how WW2 started, it took a few years to get there.

The smart move would have been to put a quick end to this long ago and call Putin's bluff then. It's still the smart move.

Every day that Putin spends in isolation and desperation fighting an unwinnable war and killing everyone who isn't a total yes man around him is a day that increases the risk of a nuclear war, as him and the people around him really lose their grasp on reality.

That to me is a fairly obvious truth. There likely is no way to slowly inch out of this.

Well we disagree then. Also there’s a difference between current member NATO countries joining and Ukraine, obviously.

[PeteMoss]

Originally Posted by Mr.Coffee

Well we disagree then. Also there’s a difference between current member NATO countries joining and Ukraine, obviously.

Ukraine would be similar to Lithuania, Estonia and Latvia joining in 2004. All former Soviet states and all on the Russia border.

[Itse]

Originally Posted by Mr.Coffee

Well we disagree then. Also there’s a difference between current member NATO countries joining and Ukraine, obviously.

Yes and no.

If you agree that Russia has some special right to call shots over Ukraine, then yes.

If you agree that Ukraine is an independent country and that everyone knows no one has any plans to seriously try to conquear Russia proper, then no.

Ukraine isn't a threat to Russia's national security. Them being in NATO does not affect Russia in any other way than it would put an end to Russia's attempts to take over Ukraine, at least militarily. Nothing is a real military threat to Russia, because they're a huge military power with nukes.

[Mr.Coffee]

Originally Posted by PeteMoss

Ukraine would be similar to Lithuania, Estonia and Latvia joining in 2004. All former Soviet states and all on the Russia border.

And which was also a bad idea to let them in.

Again regardless if we agree / disagree, constantly pushing the “Western / American” sphere of influence into territory that Russia has considered to be their “sphere of influence” is what has led them to feel so defensive and engage on Ukraine. You don’t have to think that’s right or fair, I certainly don’t, but you should consider the consequences of pushing Russia too far.

[Mr.Coffee]

Originally Posted by Itse

Yes and no.

If you agree that Russia has some special right to call shots over Ukraine, then yes.

If you agree that Ukraine is an independent country and that everyone knows no one has any plans to seriously try to conquear Russia proper, then no.

Ukraine isn't a threat to Russia's national security. Them being in NATO does not affect Russia in any other way than it would put an end to Russia's attempts to take over Ukraine, at least militarily. Nothing is a real military threat to Russia, because they're a huge military power with nukes.

We can agree on this one point but letting them in NATO is asking for nuclear war.

[Itse]

Originally Posted by Mr.Coffee

And which was also a bad idea to let them in.

Again regardless if we agree / disagree, constantly pushing the “Western / American” sphere of influence into territory that Russia has considered to be their “sphere of influence” is what has led them to feel so defensive and engage on Ukraine. You don’t have to think that’s right or fair, I certainly don’t, but you should consider the consequences of pushing Russia too far.

You're buying into Putin's propaganda.

NATO borders only affect Russia's ability to influence a country through military pressure. If the Baltic states weren't in NATO, Russia would likely have attacked them instead of Ukraine, or before Ukraine.

NATO borders are not about "sphere's of influence" anymore, and haven't been in a long time. Hungary for example is much closer to Russia than Western Europe currently, despite it's NATO membership, and just overall Russia has massive influence over Europe, right up to places like UK and Germany, which are supposedly NATO heartland.

[mivdo]

Whether or not Ukraine is let into NATO, there will be a response. There is already chatter of tactical nukes being deployed and NATO has already come out and said that there will be actions taken if it ever comes to that point. It might not be nuclear but enough to persuade another attack.

Its not just Russia your trying to deter but any madman with nukes just trying to get thier way.

[PeteMoss]

Originally Posted by Mr.Coffee

We can agree on this one point but letting them in NATO is asking for nuclear war.

This is what I disagree with. Is Russia really going to end their own existence (and everyone elses) over Ukraine joining NATO?

I have no idea if its a good move or not - but once you buy that Russia is the party that will act irrationally with their nuclear weapons you are at a disadvantage in a threat situation.

[opendoor]

Originally Posted by PeteMoss

Ukraine would be similar to Lithuania, Estonia and Latvia joining in 2004. All former Soviet states and all on the Russia border.

There are pretty significant differences though. In 2004 the Baltic states:

-were 55th-65th in GDP per capita
-were in the 35th-50th range in corruption indexes
-had relatively stable democratic institutions without much internal strife


By comparison, Ukraine:

-is 131st in GDP per capita
-is 122nd in the corruption index (barely above Russia)
-has had multiple revolutions in the last 20 years and was engaged in a civil war with Russian-backed separatists for 8 years.


With Article 5 and its requirements, NATO members need to consider the stability of the countries they admit, particularly when they border Russia. So while a place like Bulgaria might also seem a bit suspect to admit, they're essentially surrounded by NATO members already so there's less chance of them dragging NATO into a war if things go awry.

[Street Pharmacist]

Nm

[Mr.Coffee]

Originally Posted by Itse

You're buying into Putin's propaganda.

NATO borders only affect Russia's ability to influence a country through military pressure. If the Baltic states weren't in NATO, Russia would likely have attacked them instead of Ukraine, or before Ukraine.

NATO borders are not about "sphere's of influence" anymore, and haven't been in a long time. Hungary for example is much closer to Russia than Western Europe currently, despite it's NATO membership, and just overall Russia has massive influence over Europe, right up to places like UK and Germany, which are supposedly NATO heartland.

I’m not debating any of that. This isn’t really about opinions or what’s right or wrong. We should focus on the facts:

1. Putin has decision making to launch a nuke.
2. Putins opinion therefore matters
3. His justifications, whether or not we agree with them, therefore matter

all of the above IF we want to avoid nuclear war. We can say he’s bluffing. We can say we don’t believe him. We can say we want to save Ukraine, that’s all fine.

I’m saying it’s a bad idea to keep testing a psychopath who has said he will use nuclear weapons if necessary. And we also know that continuing to provoke Russia, in his mind, is what could lead to such outcome.

Allowing Ukraine in lot NATO will be an escalation not de-escalation. It very likely leads to nuclear war based on what we know now.

Again regardless of right wrong etc. we need to be calculating with what outcome we want to avoid.

What do we want more, Ukraine in NATO or avoidance of nuclear war?

[White Out 403]

Originally Posted by FlamesAddiction

OK Elon.

How about we make Crimea and independent Khanate under a Kahzar ruler instead. The Doge of Venice can oversee the transition. Moscow can then be relinquished back to the Mongols. A 200 km buffer around the Volga will be used to promote Viking trade in the region.

As someone playing in that area of CK3 right now this reply tickled me pink.

Down with the Kazhars!

[Itse]

The whole "sphere of influence" thing matching up with NATO borders dates back to the time of the Iron curtain, when there were literal walls on the border of NATO and Warsaw pact, when that line significantly affected things like trade and travel, when financial investments over that border were strictly limited.

That's not really how the world works anymore.

Heck, US just recently had a president that was closer with Russia than he was with Europe.

Putin is only pretending NATO membership is "a matter of Russian safety" because it suits his interests. It's not a real thing.

[FlamesAddiction]

Putin is in a dictator's dilemma now. If he makes threats and doesn't follow through, he will lose the nationalists that he depends on for power.

[eddly]

Ukraine first expressed interest in joining NATO in 2002. It is a slow process.

[KootenayFlamesFan]

https://twitter.com/user/status/1577020030260514816

[opendoor]

Originally Posted by Mr.Coffee

Is that what is being proposed? They applied to NATO. Did they conditionally apply based on when this conflict is over? Is that clear? I haven’t seen it but I guess we can take your word for it.

Other than situations like Finland and Sweden, getting into NATO is a very long process. And the further you are from meeting the ideal standards, the longer the process is. It took Albania 10 years to be invited after NATO engaged them in the Membership Action Plan process (which is where prospective countries show they're capable of reaching the required standards), and that's a step Ukraine still hasn't even gotten close to. North Macedonia took even longer; they started their MAP in 1999 and weren't admitted until 2019.

[PeteMoss]

Originally Posted by opendoor

There are pretty significant differences though. In 2004 the Baltic states:

-were 55th-65th in GDP per capita
-were in the 35th-50th range in corruption indexes
-had relatively stable democratic institutions without much internal strife


By comparison, Ukraine:

-is 131st in GDP per capita
-is 122nd in the corruption index (barely above Russia)
-has had multiple revolutions in the last 20 years and was engaged in a civil war with Russian-backed separatists for 8 years.


With Article 5 and its requirements, NATO members need to consider the stability of the countries they admit, particularly when they border Russia. So while a place like Bulgaria might also seem a bit suspect to admit, they're essentially surrounded by NATO members already so there's less chance of them dragging NATO into a war if things go awry.

That is a separate question to what is being discussed.

NATO considering Ukraine and then turning them down because of the issues you mention is reasonable.

NATO just outright rejecting Ukraine because Russia will get mad just seems likely to lead to Russia repeating the same actions until they get the result they want.

[Itse]

Originally Posted by Mr.Coffee

What do we want more, Ukraine in NATO or avoidance of nuclear war?

Again, false dichotomy. These are not actually related issues.

Russians already said they might consider a nuclear response if Sweden and Finland applied. All the same reasoning about spheres of influence applied, even more so in fact. Finland joining NATO is a much bigger security threat to Russia than Ukraine would be, since our border is so close to St. Petersburg.

This just isn't a real thing.

There's a ton of crazy crap coming out of Kremlin. Putin changes his justifications for the war in Ukraine constantly, and he keeps saying all sorts of other crazy stuff. We can't start living our lives based on what Putin says, because down that path is just insanity.

The only rational way to deal with Russia is to ignore the posturing and focus on things that are real.

I also want to remind you that the most likely endstate for this war is still Putin being removed from power, something which he's not likely to survive.