Russia’s Ukraine war will probably spark nuclear proliferation
It’s hard to conclude otherwise. It seems to me quite obvious that if Ukraine had kept its nuclear weapons, Russia would not have attacked it. Or at the very least, Russia would have been far more reluctant to have attacked it.
This lesson almost certainly is not lost on other non-nuclear countries that face the threat of attack from others – that they need some sort of nuclear umbrella to protect them from a nuclear rainy day. As the world watches Ukraine fight off a more old-fashioned type of invasion from a Russian aggressor unafraid of nuclear retaliation from Ukraine or perhaps even any other country (or NATO) – a Russia whose head also openly says he’s willing to use nuclear blackmail against any significant intervention that would send military or certain types of planes to assist Ukraine – there’s a feeling of impotence.
Nuclear weapons are most useful for deterrence. Putin is certainly using them that way against the west. Ukraine has none. NATO has some but is afraid of using them – or even threatening to use them – against Putin. That takes away much or all of their deterrence value for NATO.
Trump’s brag is that he said this to Putin:
In a recording of the phone conversation with pro-golfer John Daly on Friday, March 4, the former president said: “They’re all saying oh he’s a nuclear power, it’s like they’re afraid of him. You know, he was a friend of mine, I got along great with him. I say, Vladimir, if you do it, we’re hitting Moscow. We’re going to hit Moscow. And he sort of believed me like 5%, 10% – that’s all you need.”
He continued that Putin “never did it during my time John, you know. They were all talking about it, ‘Why didn’t he do this during the last four years?’ Because he knew he couldn’t,” before mentioning that China’s President Xi Jinping is also afraid of him. The Republican added: “Xi didn’t bother me either. I told him the same thing, that that’ll be next. You know that’s going to be next. Taiwan will be next. You won’t have any computer chips. They’ll blow them off the face of the earth.”
Did Trump really say that to Putin and/or Xi? Who knows? The point is that Trump understood the uses of keeping other leaders wondering. Whether or not he said this directly, it was implicit in his persona. That can be valuable. Of course, it could also be argued that it could be provocative.
When I was a child, nuclear weapons were relatively new. Many of us who were very young in the 1950s remember having intense fear of a worldwide nuclear war that would obliterate human life. The 1959 movie “On the Beach” was a fictional representation of that fear, and also quite a good movie. I saw it as a child and it was the stuff of nightmares – nightmares I was already having anyway.
As I grew up – something I hadn’t been sure would even occur – and then got sort of old, the fear receded because we had had these weapons so long and somehow they’d been kept in check. Cooler heads, saner times? It sure doesn’t seem that way anymore, does it?
[NOTE: There’s also the question of Russia’s claim to hypersonic weapons, as well as their possible use already in the Ukraine war. There’s a discussion and some links about this in today’s open thread, and it’s certainly a fit topic for this post’s comments thread as well.]
North Korea pioneered nuclear weapons as a shield decades ago.
Do Japan and Taiwan have nuclear weapons as shields from China? Probably, but they keep quiet because the hysteria in China would be off scale if they admitted it.
A Chinese gov official was presumably given permission to post this on Twitter.
Time lapse map of NATO
About 30 sec
https://twitter.com/zlj517/status/1504770412340998148
“That takes away much or all of their deterrence value for NATO.”
Actually, their deterrence value is just fine because they are for deterring an attack against NATO. Suggesting they be used in a situation NOT involving a NATO member kind of proves the whole point about Russia being concerned about NATO expansion.
Mike
MBunge:
I disagree. I think Russia correctly assumes NATO would not use nuclear weapons even to defend NATO nations.
And for the thousandth time – NATO’s expansion into Ukraine, one of the claimed reasons for Russia’s attacking, is a red herring. NATO has not expanded into Ukraine and Ukraine was not even close to fulfilling NATO’S membership requirements. Plus, Russia has long had borders with other NATO countries, as I’ve explained in other posts.
Putin has for decades stated his desire to rebuild Greater Russia and undo the terrible shame of the dissolution of the USSR. Biden’s and Europe’s weakness told him now was the time.
I don’t know for sure what Trump told Putin, but I readily believe that Putin thought Trump might do something. It’s sadly clear that Biden won’t, and he and his team are ideological and incompetent idiots.
Yes, surely many countries will want the deterrent of a few nuclear warheads aimed at their worst enemies.
Liyba is also a “teachable moment” for the smaller non-nuclear nations. Right after giving up nuclear research/materials, we got the Hildabeast: “We came, we saw, he died”
And as for use of nuclear weapons in Europe — I had a coworker who help to write the code for the war games covering Soviet attack into Europe against NATO. At that time we had thousands of tactical nuclear weapons in Europe. EVERY TIME a tactical weapon was used, the war game result was escalation to a full exchange via ICBMs on the US and Russia. EVERY TIME. Remember too that at that time neutron bombs were developed to counter mass Soviet tank attacks (to save European property, after all, as the saying went, German cities were only 20 Kt apart).
Imagine what a Soviet tank crew, having received a lethal dose and with only hours or a few days to live, would do. They were dead anyway — it would be no holds barred, as in the Japanese kamikaze attacks in the Pacific which resulted in more navy personnel deaths than ever before.
I too think it very likely that greater nuclear proliferation will result. But even if Putin had not invaded the Ukraine, it would still have happened now that Bidet is giving the mad Mullahs free rein to pursue their fondest dreams.
Just the Sunni world alone (90% of Muslims) will be forced to pursue nuclear capability.
“It seems to me quite obvious that if Ukraine had kept its nuclear weapons, Russia would not have attacked it.”
As long as nuclear weapons remained in the Ukraine, the Soviet Union would never have allowed the Ukraine to become an independent State. That despite the Ukrainians never having control of the nukes in the Ukraine. Control always remained in the Kremlin.
“I say, Vladimir, if you do it, we’re hitting Moscow. We’re going to hit Moscow. And he sort of believed me like 5%, 10% – that’s all you need.” Trump
I suspect that Putin and Trump did have a rough understanding of each other. I also think that Putin only gave a 5-10% chance that Trump would respond to an invasion of the Ukraine by hitting Moscow because nukes launched at Moscow would result in the Russians responding with their 6000+ nukes.
Perhaps Putin thought Trump might be crazy enough to do that but more likely, Putin figured that Trump would never agree to the Ukraine joining NATO because Trump was canny enough to understand Russia’s strategic national security concerns with that development.
If Russia’s hypersonic missiles even have close to the performance attributes the Russians claim them to have, they are a game changer.
The Ukraine if I’m not mistaken was not in operational control of the nukes on its soil.
An article you might consult which hashes out this issue was published ca. 1977 by (IIRC) Richard Betts and Leslie Gelb. The title was “Paranoids, Pygmys, Pariahs, and Nonproliferation”.
“for the thousandth time – NATO’s expansion into Ukraine, one of the claimed reasons for Russia’s attacking, is a red herring. NATO has not expanded into Ukraine and Ukraine was not even close to fulfilling NATO’S membership requirements.” neo
NATO’s 2020 announcement that the Ukraine will be admitted to NATO was apparently a joke… Nor could NATO’S membership requirements ever be ‘temporarily’ suspended due to “special circumstances”…
“Putin has for decades stated his desire to rebuild Greater Russia and undo the terrible shame of the dissolution of the USSR.” neo
What metric is used to selectively believe Putin’s words regarding his desire to rebuild greater Russia but not to believe his words regarding the Ukraine joining NATO as a red line for Russia?
When I look at the quality of the world’s leaders and the lethality of the weapons they possess, I think it’s only a matter of time before someone uses nukes. I’m just not sure if the nuclear catastrophe happens after civilizational collapse or before.
We thought that the 20th Century was dangerous.
Hold my beer.
The 21st Century is upon us.
If we can survive it, we have a chance of having a longer “L” in the Drake equation than most in the last 4 billion or more years. A short “L” may be the reason for the “Great Silence”.
https://www.seti.org/library-great-silence
Useless continues.
He can’t wrap his brain around the idea that Vlad would lie whenever it suits Vlad’s ends.
He fallen back into his Nuclear Freeze phase when he was a liberal.
Ukraine “made” the decision to completely denuclearize its 1800 nuclear weapons, send them to Russia in 1994.
In exchange, the U.S., the U.K. and Russia would guarantee Ukraine’s security in an agreement known as the Budapest Memorandum.
Who was the American president in 1994? Why, William Jefferson Clinton. Guaranteed Ukraine’s security, huh?
Trust America? Why?
Nuke proliferation increase seems assured. Of course, there’s likely been plenty of quiet proliferation in the past decade or two. Or three.
The econ side is seeing barriers drop as well. The freezing of RU assets will topple dominoes and cause reactions that will continue for a few decades at least.
“What metric is used to selectively believe Putin’s words regarding his desire to rebuild greater Russia but not to believe his words regarding the Ukraine joining NATO as a red line for Russia?”
The usual one. Once you’ve chosen sides, all the facts line up. It’s human nature.
What metric? Past and current behaviour it’s Occam’s Razor.
om, you come across as overly belligerent. It’s just blog commentary you know.
You asked the question. It may not be “human nature.”
Re “On the Beach”: no one learns truth from movies; they just learn hysteria, hatred, falsehoods. Riefenstahl and Goebbels knew that almost 100 yrs ago.
A long time ago, I did research in air defense for the USAF. My focus area was cruise missiles. I built dozens of simulations of Rooskie cruise missile attacks. While I was doing that, my wife was simulating the LEAP KKV intercepting Rooskie RVs. That was after she was part of the ASAT program that shot down the Solwind P78-1 satellite. I thought that was all in the past.
NATO’s 2020 announcement that the Ukraine will be admitted to NATO
I don’t think you’ve ever directly quoted that ‘announcement’ in context.
Cicero:
I never said the facts in the movie were true. I said I saw it as a young child, and it gave me nightmares.
JimNorCal:
Liars lie, as do tyrants. But not every word they say is a lie. It’s up to us to figure out when they are lying and when they are telling the truth, and it’s not just when their words fit into some pre-existing theory.
THAAD uses KKV to destroy RVs, (not Winnebagos), but you know this, undoubtably.
🙂
IIRC the Ivy League PhDs said that was impossible too.
“NATO’s 2020 announcement that the Ukraine will be admitted to NATO” GB
“I don’t think you’ve ever directly quoted that ‘announcement’ in context.” Art Deco
I have, several times in fact and, each time linked to the NATO webpage in which it is stated.
Here it is again; Enlargement”
https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natolive/topics_49212.htm
[my emphasis]
As we all know, an organization’s formal repetition of a prior formal position without qualification is a reiterated endorsement of the previously stated position.
Geoffrey, how precise is “in the future?” Funny that an invasion of another country had to occur to prevent that potential future event. I guess it was on NATO’s calendar for 2022 or for 2052? It’s Vlad’s Get Out of Jail Free Card.
om,
“Geoffrey, how precise is “in the future?”
Ah the lawyerly, “it depends upon your definition of is” argument.
You suggest that Putin should have waited, trusting that NATO was only joking in their 2020 reiteration of their 2008 position and relied upon wishful thinking?
Once NATO violated the 2010 Astana agreement, in which all parties to the agreement, declared that no party to the agreement could act in such a way as to threaten the security of any other party to the agreement… it destroyed any realistic basis for Putin and Russia’s government to rely upon the West’s assurances.
No nation in an adversarial relationship with another can afford the strategic vulnerability of the other being mere minutes away from its capital and largest city.
Go ahead, check with any competent military strategist and, without identifying the adversaries, query them on the strategic implications of such a circumstance. I welcome your reporting back to us their professional assessment of the strategic vulnerability such a scenario would present.
It’s quite revealing that after my repeated highlighting of that strategic vulnerability, it has been either cavalierly denied without specific objection or simply ignored as if having never been mentioned.
In any formal debate, it would not be myself who would be judged to be the loser.
Its petty and tiresome for legitimate, unrebutted disagreement to be labeled as evidence of intellectual obstinacy.
@neo:It seems to me quite obvious that if Ukraine had kept its nuclear weapons, Russia would not have attacked it.
I don’t believe Ukraine ever had the ability to launch “their” nuclear weapons. Those were the Soviet Union’s, located in Ukraine, and the ability to launch them remained with Russia:
The leaders of Ukraine, Kazakhstan, and Belarus did not possess any codes that might have permitted them to launch nuclear delivery vehicles. Instead, a special communications network was installed in the presidential offices in the three capitals, linking them with Mr. Yeltsin’s office in Moscow. In theory, before making a decision about launching nuclear forces, the Russian President was to call the three capitals and ask the leaders for their approval. In theory, the President would send his codes to the military only after receiving this approval.
While clear on paper, the new procedure was more of a political compromise than a practical solution. In reality, it was questionable whether the Russian President, faced with the threat of incoming missiles, would have an extra five to seven minutes to call the three republic leaders, especially since, Belarus and Kazakhstan, at least, do not have any power to block whatever decision Moscow might make. Even if the newly-independent states refused to grant him their approval, the President might still have a strong incentive to ignore their prohibition.
Ukraine could not take full operational control of the nuclear arsenal without Russia knowing about it (and needing something like 12 to 18 months to actually execute it), and had no nuclear weapons program to replace the weapons as they aged. (We all remember that nuclear material decays…)
Having Russian nuclear weapons in Ukrainian territory did neither country any good; so Ukraine traded those nuclear weapons for financial assistance and security guarantees.
We can probably guess what happened to the money, and we know what security guarantees from the West are worth. Had Ukraine kept those nuclear weapons and tried to take full control of them, they might have had war with Russia back then… and at any rate a lot of those weapons might not be any good by now anyway, and it’s doubtful whether Ukraine could have maintained the capability to replace them.
Geoffrey plays the lawyer and pitches Vlad’s case, again.
For you see a future threat or risk in Geoffrey world is rationalization for invasion in the present.
Because Ukraine might possibly, potentially, at some date pose a threat, repeat ad nauseum.
That observation of obstinacy must have been close to the mark?
You keep repeating, obstinately?
Sigh. “In context” is a tough concept for the Putin press agent here:
“We will begin talks immediately with the aim of signing Accession Protocols by the end of July 2008 and completing the ratification process without delay. During the period leading up to accession, NATO will involve the invited countries in Alliance activities to the greatest extent possible, and will continue to provide support and assistance, including through the Membership Action Plan (MAP). We look forward to receiving the invited countries’ timetables for reform, upon which further progress will be expected before, and after, accession in order to enhance their contribution to the Alliance. ”
“NATO welcomes Ukraine’s and Georgia’s Euro-Atlantic aspirations for membership in NATO. We agreed today that these countries will become members of NATO. Both nations have made valuable contributions to Alliance operations. We welcome the democratic reforms in Ukraine and Georgia and look forward to free and fair parliamentary elections in Georgia in May. MAP is the next step for Ukraine and Georgia on their direct way to membership. Today we make clear that we support these countries’ applications for MAP. Therefore we will now begin a period of intensive engagement with both at a high political level to address the questions still outstanding pertaining to their MAP applications. We have asked Foreign Ministers to make a first assessment of progress at their December 2008 meeting. Foreign Ministers have the authority to decide on the MAP applications of Ukraine and Georgia.”
This communiqué was issued on 3 April 2008. Note that membership did not poll well in the Ukraine for years following this communiqué and the membership application has not been expedited even though Russia has attacked both Georgia and the Ukraine in the intervening years. Geoffrey’s the sort who believes you when you tell him the check is in the mail.
“Geoffrey plays the lawyer and pitches Vlad’s case, again.” om
LOL. It is not I but you who first said, ““Geoffrey, how precise is “in the future?” demanding a specific definition of “precise” is the very definition of a lawyerly argument.
As expected, still avoiding addressing my main point.
It’s truly pathetic to continually throw out the accusation of being unreasonably obstinate and when refuted, resort to “I think thee protest too much”… the longer you go on, the clearer you reveal yourself for all with eyes to see.
“Sigh. “In context” is a tough concept for the Putin press agent here:” Art
Talk of ‘process’ is meaningless when just under that verbiage NATO reveals that the decision has already been made. And that it was stated in 2008 changes its reiteration in 2020 not in the least.
Here’s all the ‘context’ needed:
“NATO welcomes Ukraine’s and Georgia’s Euro-Atlantic aspirations for membership in NATO. We agreed today that these countries will become members of NATO.”
“Putin press agent”… I thought you had a bit more integrity than that Art, apparently not. ‘Winning’ seems to be the be all and end all of your conversation.
Geoffrey;
Own goal, old man.
“In the future” is open ended, unlike “tomorrow,” in the next month, in the next year, or in 2052 (30 years). If you look back you will see that I asked about 2052.
Who is spliitng hairs and dodging a rhetorical question?
You see Geoffrey those are all “in the future.” The future is an open ended thing, a feature of “time” and different from the “present” or the “past” to be “precise.”
It takes a lot of words to ask you a very simple question.
Geoffrey speak “the decision had already been made” except for the reality that Ukraine is not member of NATO. It may be a problem of that past, present, and future thing. Are we dealing with science fiction again Geoffrey?
There has to be widespread nuclear proliferation.
What country could trust a USA under the Milley clique?
om,
“in the future” for the Russians means ‘it will happen but of course we’re not going to tell you when’.
What matters for the Russians is that NATO has repeated its intention to place itself upon Russia’s border.
That’s the bottom line for them.
So the Russians had to assume that at some undetermined point in the future, perhaps as early as next week, perhaps next month… they could awaken to the news that NATO has admitted the Ukraine into its membership through temporarily suspending normal requirements of admission.
NATO effectively stated that at some point in the future, Russians will awaken to that news. Which left Russia no choice but to assume the worst.
You have to be quite naive, willfully blind or ignorant of strategic realities to not realize the effect that would have on the Russians.
Given our long discussion, naivete or ignorance of the strategic realities is not a viable excuse for you. Which leaves willfully blind. And when we refuse to face reality, denial and/or attacking the messenger are all that remains.
Included in the CNN interview linked below with General Patreus is an interesting and very worthwhile hour long analysis (subtitles included) by a Colonel, a retired Finnish Intelligence Analyst, whose career was apparently focused on studying and understanding Russia, lecturing about the historical reasons for Russian’s world-view, mind-set, and actions, and why Russian leaders, governments, and the Russian people think and act as they do.
See https://spinstrangenesscharm.wordpress.com/2022/03/21/ukraine-vernal-equinox-edition-david-petraeus-sees-a-stalemate-revealing-2018-lecture-by-finnish-intelligence-colonel-on-russia/
Having trouble with this link, but there are a number of versions including an English transcript of this lecture on the web.
“Admission From Zelenskyy Highlights How Biden Administration Wanted To Provoke Russia To Invade Ukraine”
https://theconservativetreehouse.com/blog/2022/03/21/admission-from-zelenskyy-highlights-how-biden-administration-wanted-to-provoke-russia-to-invade-ukraine/
Obviously, Bidet hasn’t the mental capacity to plan out this but his ‘advisors’ certainly could.
Bidet just let the cat out of the bag, just as Dr Kerry Chant, New South Wales’ chief health office did not too long ago: Biden: “There’s Going to Be a New World Order”
https://thenationalpulse.com/2022/03/21/biden-theres-going-to-be-a-new-world-order/
Geoffrey pulls out an ever usefull nugget of his wisdom when faced with a different opinion or assessment of facts “willfully blind.”
Invasions in the here and now as opposed to fears of the future. Reality vs prophecy as spoken by Geoffrey.
Attacking the messenger! When he is just trying to give Vlad’s side of things?
Useless.
Geoffrey might consider looking at a map or globe when he trots out the NATO on Russia’s border. But that would not support the Vlad spin on Ukraine. Geoffrey seems remarkably, but persistently, unable to use maps or the globe, or see.
Hint, Norway, the Baltics, etc.
We get it. Nothing to see here…
On the topic of Trump vs Putin, I believe the US self reliance on energy was much more important than any threat by Trump. Oil was $30 a barrel then. Trump knew enough about economics to use it as a weapon. Democrats are economic illiterates. Look at inflation and gas prices for examples.
@Geoffrey Britain I was originally going to read through the comments without speaking up myself (especially given Neo’s article on Jan 6 Protestor treatment, which is a more imminent case), but you just HAD to do it…
“Once NATO violated the 2010 Astana agreement, in which all parties to the agreement, declared that no party to the agreement could act in such a way as to threaten the security of any other party to the agreement… ”
*STOP LYING.*
NATO did not violate the 2010 Astana Agreement, Putin’s Russia Did.
Because you previously (mis)used what the 2010 Astana Agreement said to peddle this narrative on a previous thread, let’s go through what it actually says, shall we?
https://www.ieee.es/en/Galerias/fichero/OtrasPublicaciones/Internacional/AstanaConmemorativeDeclaration2010.pdf
Let’s further compare the text of this to how you used it in a previous comment thread.
https://www.thenewneo.com/2022/03/16/what-did-nato-promise-russia/#comments
Now, right away, you’ll notice something in the 2010 Astana Agreement you are “conveniently” omitting.
““ 3. The security of each participating State is inseparably linked to that of all others. Each participating State has an equal right to security. WE REAFFIRM THE INHERENT RIGHT OF EACH AND EVERY PARTICIPATING STATE TO BE FREE TO CHOOSE OR CHANGE ITS SECURITY ARRANGEMENTS, INCLUDING TREATIES OF ALLIANCE, AS THEY EVOLVE. Each State also has the right to neutrality. EACH PARTICIPATING STATE WILL RESPECT THE RIGHTS OF ALL OTHERS IN THESE REGARDS. They will not
strengthen their security at the expense of the security of other States. Within the OSCE no State, group of States or organization can have any pre-eminent responsibility for maintaining peace and stability in the OSCE area or can consider any part of the OSCE area as its sphere of influence. We will maintain only those military capabilities that are commensurate with our legitimate individual or collective security needs, TAKING INTO ACCOUNT OBLIGATIONS UNDER INTERNATIONAL LAW, AS WELL AS THE LEGITIMATE SECURITY CONCERNS OF OTHER STATES. We further reaffirm that all OSCE principles and commitments, without exception, APPLY EQUALLY TO EACH PARTICIPATING STATE, AND WE EMPHASIZE THAT WE ARE equally to each
participating State, and we emphasize that we are accountable to our citizens and responsible to each other for their full implementation. We regard these commitments as our common achievement, and therefore consider them to be matters of immediate and legitimate concern to all participating States.”
Now again, take a look at the signatories of the 2010 Astana Agreement, and you’ll note both Ukrainian and Russian governments.
This underlines what I said before, but the 2010 Astana Agreement spells it out in pure Black and White.
Geoffrey Britain tried to use the text of Astana to argue that the “guarentees” (which frankly barely deserve the term) made to Soviet leaders from 1989-1990 about NATO expansion or the deployment of troops were still valid.
No, No Astana DOES NOT say that. Indeed, in context it states quite equivocally that any said agreements ARE NULL AND VOID, and frankly the context of the Soviet Coup as well as the aftermath makes it clear the situation evolved to the point they were unenforceable.
Moreover, Geoffrey Britain tried to argue that NATO violated Astana 2010 by inviting/promising/whatever nations like Ukraine membership in NATO, which under some tortured argumentation was a violation of the terms against “strengthening security at the expense of others.”
No, Astana absolutely DOES NOT say this. Indeed, Astana outright affirms that every single signatory nation has the right to enter into ANY Alliance it chooses or none at all, and thus Ukraine has every right to enter NATO and NATO every right to make that invitation, just as the CIS. So in essence, it did- as Geoffrey claimed- “permanently settle the Ukraine joining NATO issue”, just IN EXACTLY THE OPPOSITE FASHION that Geoffrey claimed it did: by asserting the right of Ukraine to join NATO or any other alliance it chose, just like every other signatory to Astana 2010.
So rather than NATO violating Astana, Putin’s Russia did. Indeed, Putin’s Russia did every single damn time the Bald Chekist or one of his henchmen opened their mouths to blather about how Ukraine entering NATO would be a “red line.” So if we’re going to cite Putin’s statements trying to warn (really, blackmail) Ukraine or NATO that he would not tolerate Ukrainian membership in NATO, that merely underlines that Putin was acting in monstrously bad faith when he had his representatives the supposedly “binding’ agreement at Astana and had no intention of fully abiding by its terms.
And moreover, this should be evident to literally anybody who read the agreement and understood the context.
And I KNOW Geoffrey Britain had to have looked at at least SOME parts of the article I just quoted, because he surgically cropped parts of it when purporting to quote it. Indeed, it’s where he cribbed the
“Each participating State will respect the rights of all others in these regards. They will not strengthen their security at the expense of the security of other States.” (while conveniently bolding the “They will not strengthen their security at the expense of the security of other states” part.
While CONVENIENTLY ignoring the fact that “the rights of all others in these regards” came IMMEDIATELY AFTER- and was CLEARLY referencing- the sentences “WE REAFFIRM THE INHERENT RIGHT OF EACH AND EVERY PARTICIPATING STATE TO BE FREE TO CHOOSE OR CHANGE ITS SECURITY ARRANGEMENTS, INCLUDING TREATIES OF ALLIANCE, AS THEY EVOLVE. Each State also has the right to neutrality.”
Now, why did Geoffrey not bother quoting a substantial or relevant part of the amendment as I did? After all, it’s not like they didn’t link to the text of the agreement (indeed, I’m using the very same link Geoffrey provided).
Well, I think I know why. Because citing the entire text of the 2010 Astana Ceremonial Agreement completely destroys the idea that NATO went back on its word and that its invitation to Ukraine amounted to a violation of the Astana Agreement.
Which again, the agreement itself makes BLINDINGLY clear is not only not the case, but CANNOT be the case.
Unfortunately this means that Geoffrey was lying by omission.
Particularly since they want to argue reading that the terms against aggrandizing one’s security at the expense of the security of a neighbor should be taken to mean that NATO agreements against expanding membership or deploying troops East of the former GDR from a time when Yazov was still a Nomenklatura in the Gorbachev regime and not a putschist overthrowing it are still in force, umbras and emanations style. But they do NOT want to read what is clearly laid out in Black and White in Astana itself: that Ukraine had every single right to join NATO or field any invitations to that direction it wanted, and neither Putin’s Russia nor other nation-state had any legal rustication to prevent it under the agreement.
“I suspect that Putin and Trump did have a rough understanding of each other. I also think that Putin only gave a 5-10% chance that Trump would respond to an invasion of the Ukraine by hitting Moscow because nukes launched at Moscow would result in the Russians responding with their 6000+ nukes.”
Agreed, or at least as many were actionable.
“Perhaps Putin thought Trump might be crazy enough to do that but more likely, Putin figured that Trump would never agree to the Ukraine joining NATO because Trump was canny enough to understand Russia’s strategic national security concerns with that development.”
Except as I discussed when talking about Astana, Trump and the rest of the West had an understanding of “Russia’s strategic national concerns” were bound to international law, such as the recognition of national self-determination inherent in Astana. Which is why Trump was prepared to support the Ukrainians with more lethal aid than any prior US Administration to fight the quasi-war against Putin’s troops that started in 2014.
Whether or not Trump made such a promise to nuke Moscow (or merely “hit” it with conventional weapons), Trump understood (As did anybody who bothered actually reading and understanding the terms of things like Astana) that Putin had violated international law and that the door was open to support those fighting him.
“If Russia’s hypersonic missiles even have close to the performance attributes the Russians claim them to have, they are a game changer.”
Which is a big If.
“NATO’s 2020 announcement that the Ukraine will be admitted to NATO was apparently a joke… ”
Probably not a joke, but not anything close to being fulfilled, especially given NATO stances on nations with unfinished internal conflicts like Georgia and Moldova (huh, what’s the common denominator with those?!?).
Moreover, it’s worth reminding that the 2020 announcement came half a decade after the Russian invasion of Ukraine under the thinnest possible cover (and one that Putin himself has still ripped by admitting things like the deployment of Russian military forces under false flag during the takeover of Crimea). Ya THINK that might’ve encouraged Ukraine to look at NATO membership more?
In any case, whether or not the wording was a “joke” or not, it was a joke or offer NATO had every right to make and Ukraine had every right to field, as outlined in BLACK AND WHITE in international law and-again- at the 2010 Astana Agreement.
“Nor could NATO’S membership requirements ever be ‘temporarily’ suspended due to “special circumstances”…”
They haven’t been so far, which raises the question of what the “special circumstances” would amount to and who might be at fault for them.
“What metric is used to selectively believe Putin’s words regarding his desire to rebuild greater Russia but not to believe his words regarding the Ukraine joining NATO as a red line for Russia?”
Nice strawman. The problem, again, is simple: Ukraine has not joined NATO. Indeed, Ukraine was not anywhere near particularly close to joining NATO.
That said, if we wish to ask why we would “selectively believe Putin’s words regarding his desire to rebuild greater Russia but not to believe his words regarding Ukraine (no “the”) joining NATO as a red line for Russia”…. well, why the fuck don’t we look back at the Astana Agreement of 2010 that you keep (mis)quoting, examine whose signatures on it, and what the text agrees to?
Far from how you’ve liked to portray it, Astana does not state that the reassurances made to Gorbachev, Yazov, etc. al. in 1990 are still valid, VERY MUCH THE OPPOSITE.
Moreover, it agrees that any “red line” declaration by the Kremlin that it found Ukraine joining NATO to be unacceptable, are themselves Unacceptable, as a clear violation of Article 3. And yet somehow Putin found it within his power to give authorization for his diplomatic stooges to ink their John Hancocks to it. Why is that? (Well, probably because they- like I myself- never regarded the Astana agreement as particularly “binding” or relevant, given that it was a Ceremonial Declaration. But it’s still a statement of intent and policy under the law, which they broke.)
Which brings us to evaluating that Putin has consistently banged on about wanting to rebuild a Greater Russia, but has not been consistent on Ukraine joining NATO being a “Red Line.” Which brings us to the question of what is really going on.
We’ve shellacked Biden and his handlers for their obfuscation, contradictory nonsense, and mixed messages making this crisis worse, but it’s past time to roast Putin and his ilk for doing similar stuff albeit on a lesser level. Particularly because there is no good explanation for why Putin had his government sign the Astana Agreement only to then break it.
“Ah the lawyerly, “it depends upon your definition of is” argument.”
I agree, I think om was being ENTIRELY too generous by referring to your argument as “lawyerly” or “lawyering.”
Because even a crooked lawyer wouldn’t have lied as blatantly or provably as you did when you misquoted Astana by pointedly omitting important context, namely the part about freedom to choose one’s alliance or neutrality. Which again came IMMEDIATELY BEFORE one of your quoted excerpts (and indeed was referenced by one of the sentences you cropped out).
“You suggest that Putin should have waited, trusting that NATO was only joking in their 2020 reiteration of their 2008 position and relied upon wishful thinking?”
I suggest Putin had no legitimate business in whether or not Ukraine joined NATO, at least as far as the Astana Agreement is concerned. Or at least he had no legitimate business trying to prevent it by utterly illegal crimes against the peace and state backed terrorism like his conduct in-country from 2014 to now.
That may be harsh, but again, if Putin were not willing to accept that judgement he shouldn’t have had his stooges sign a supposedly “binding agreement” in 2010 outlining as much.
“Once NATO violated the 2010 Astana agreement,-”
I already fisked this and showed this is a lie, NATO did not violate 2010 Astana, Putin did.
And you know this on some level because you very obviously were selective in what you quoted. Too selective frankly, because you went so far as to quote sentences from important articles like Article 3, leaving out the majority of the text that directly contradicted what you are saying.
” in which all parties to the agreement, declared that no party to the agreement could act in such a way as to threaten the security of any other party to the agreement… ”
Again, that’s not what Astana says.
Indeed, it VERY CLEARLY implies or states the opposite, particularly in terms of national self-determination regarding alliances and other policies. It ironed out that Ukraine had as much right to join NATO as Belarus had to join the CIS or Russia itself, and that Putin’s Russia recognized this right (at least in terms of lip service).
“it destroyed any realistic basis for Putin and Russia’s government to rely upon the West’s assurances.”
No, it underlined that Putin and Russia’s government is not in the business of honoring assurances (especially those given to NATO or other countries in its “near abroad”). Since again, NATO didn’t violate Astana, Russia did.
“No nation in an adversarial relationship with another can afford the strategic vulnerability of the other being mere minutes away from its capital and largest city.”
REALLY!?!?
Funny that, considering how Ukraine faces that exact situation now. As has Finland (especially if the attack comes from the Navy).
So clearly, some nations can and do suffer under that handicap and have for decades.
Which brings us to the real question: Why does Russia have a right not to suffer under the same handicap as Finland, Sweden, West Germany, Ukraine, South Korea, or a bunch of other nations and make preparations in anticipation of that handicap?
That I think goes to the heart of the Special Pleading that Putin and co have made. That they somehow can impose or sustain this disadvantage against other countries, but that other countries cannot or should not do so to Russia for…Reasons.
Hypocritical reasons.
“Go ahead, check with any competent military strategist and, without identifying the adversaries, query them on the strategic implications of such a circumstance.
I welcome your reporting back to us their professional assessment of the strategic vulnerability such a scenario would present.”
Oh, I don’t disagree that it represents a profound strategic vulnerability.
What I DO DISAGREE ON is that this is an utterly unworkable situation that cannot be peacefully tolerated.
Particularly since boatloads of NATO and neutral countries have tolerated this exact weakness in their relations with Russia for decades if not Centuries. Just start asking how close Tallinn is to St. Petersburg and get back to me.
Which brings us back to the fact that while the strategic disadvantage is real and profound, it’s not enough to justify war (after all, IF IT WAS then NATO would’ve been “justified” in launching a “pre-emptive” invasion of the USSR/Russia in order to roll back its borders from the capitols of its member states, something we both agree is nonsensical).
And on some level PUTIN KNOWS THIS, precisely BECAUSE he has consistently sought to exacerbate or outright fabricate casus bellis for his misadventures in the near abroad, while often downplaying the involvement of Russian forces in things like the Tshkinvali artillery strikes on the Georgian side of the border and the seizure of Crimea and the Donbas.
“It’s quite revealing that after my repeated highlighting of that strategic vulnerability, it has been either cavalierly denied without specific objection or simply ignored as if having never been mentioned.”
Well, I’ve done neither.
I’ve handily admitted it. The thing is, I’ve also stated “So what about it?”
Because the fact is that trying to justify atrocities and aggression by reference to it does not fly, especially in a world where both Estonia and Finland can make FAAAAR more justified claims to grievance against Russia than vice versa as far as vulnerability goes, but both have been willing to tolerate their capitols sitting so close to the major bases of an often-hostile foreign power.
It’s special pleading writ large. Alas it doesn’t seem like many people have called you out for this.
Well, I might as well.
“In any formal debate, it would not be myself who would be judged to be the loser.”
As a formal debater, I can say you’d likely be disqualified for lying about the presented evidence or at least heartily docked in the points. Especially considering how you’ve been outright lying about the text of Astana for at least two channels.
“Its petty and tiresome for legitimate, unrebutted disagreement to be labeled as evidence of intellectual obstinacy.”
I agree.
The problem is, if your arguments were really legitimate, unrebutted disagreement they wouldn’t have to resort to lying by omission about the primary source evidence.
Apparently not many people read the link you provided or could quote from it, which you seemed to count on. But I did.
So like I said: stop lying. It’s evidence of bad faith, it’s evidence of bad research, and it’s annoying.
Turtler:
I’m impressed by your knowledge and your efforts here.
Look at inflation and gas prices for examples.
The responsible parties in re the inflation are the Fed’s Board of Governors. The chairman, and, if I’m not mistaken, the majority of the members, were appointed by Trump. I do not blame Trump, but I do blame them. No one has in my reading adequately explained why they have behaved so irresponsibly.
Mike K:
Agreed. I think another factor has been Putin’s knowledge of Biden’s reliance on Russia for help with the administration’s all-important Iran deal.
Turtler:
Well said and well documented.
@Neo @Om
Thank you kindly. I appreciate it.
@Neo: Another thing: How do I format my posts, such as bolding, making quotes, etc?
@Neo: Another thing: How do I format my posts, such as bolding, making quotes, etc?
You can use opening and closing tags for italics, bold, and strikethrough.
Never figured out the rest myself.