But it's not speculation, NATO is the cause of the war, and should be recognized. — Manuel
Ukraine offered neutrality multiple times before and during the conflict, Putin was unmoved.
NATO offers no conceivable threat to Russia. Russian military doctrine permits a nuclear first strike in the case of an incursion into Russia's borders. This constitutes an ironclad security guarantee for Russia. AFAICT even Russian apologists don't take seriously the idea that NATO could ever launch a conventional war into Russia's borders. — hypericin
My intuition is that national pride trumps everything else. — Manuel
I'm unclear on something: You mean bad economics inside the US or in Russia?
Russia seems to be surviving somehow. — Manuel
Once the conflict started it was too late. — Manuel
So I guess negotiation with such a proven serial liar is impossible?Zelensky says different things depending on which camera is on him: Western, Russian, etc. — Manuel
As for NATO launching a conventional war, this came out yesterday: https://www.yahoo.com/news/petraeus-predicts-us-lead-nato-190325472.html — Manuel
"Too late"? What a blase dismissal of what is purportedly the war aim of Russia. Russia could certainly have saved itself a lot of grief. — hypericin
So I guess negotiation with such a proven serial liar is impossible? — hypericin
America has been humiliated on the battlefield without resorting to nukes. — RogueAI
the negotiations were rejected, and then as soon as it was launched, they would've stopped and retreated? Really? — Manuel
Yet you are holding Zelensky to this unrealistic standard while he negotiates with one of the greatest liars in politics.Politicians, by definition, are liars, so of course proven liars must negotiate. — Manuel
Obviously. They would have been negotiating from a position of power, and gotten what they wanted. But what they wanted is nothing less than Ukraine. — hypericin
Whatever you think of Putin, it's with him you must negotiate, cause he's the one in power. That's a much lower standard than risking a nuclear Armageddon. — Manuel
Yes, the later waves coming by cargo aircraft couldn't land as the fighting continued. Basically the Hostomel Airport (or Antonov Airport) I guess was the furthest Russian forces came.Also, the purpose of taking the airport is to use it. Failure to secure it through combined forces is part and parcel to the failure of the whole operation as detailed in this comparison of Hostomel with the failure of Market Garden in WW2 — Paine
And withdrew later.And they were relieved, weren't they? — Tzeentch
MacArthur wanted to use nukes in Korea. Thank God he got cashiered. It must have been tempting though, at Chosin. — RogueAI
Bold claims without justification like prior 24th of February that Russia was posed to attack Ukraine. :smirk:Simply because the Western media repeats again and again bold claims without justification, does not make it the default position that any dissenters must overcome a high burden of proof to critique, just makes it propaganda. — boethius
After 1945 usually victorious countries in war aren't having a public (or private) debate of using nukes. It usually is brought up when things don't look so good. I think there was some debate/discussion to use nukes with Dien Bien Phu, but that naturally didn't go anywhere.MacArthur wanted to use nukes in Korea. Thank God he got cashiered. It must have been tempting though, at Chosin. — RogueAI
Wait a minute! Didn't Joe Biden talk about it a lot? You remember? The thing you didn't believe was true / was just US propaganda?Whether Putin can be baited into doing it on the other side though remains open. I think he's unpredictable enough to do it if he's got nothing left. No one thought he'd invade the way he did in the first place. — Isaac
I think the response to Putin using nuclear weapons wouldn't be a nuclear escalation. And naturally the West is trying to make a sincere warning that it would be a bad thing to do.However, even if nukes are used and there is no escalation to nuclear exchange (which I would put my money on, and not simply because it's the scenario I can spend money), the use of a nuke usher in crazy nuclear proliferation and that would get out of hand later. — boethius
When Ukraine regained its independence at the end of 1991, 176 intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBMs), 44 strategic bombers and some 1900 strategic nuclear warheads remained on its territory. Under the terms of the May 1992 Lisbon Protocol to the Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (START I), Ukraine agreed to rid itself of the strategic weapons, but Kyiv made clear that certain questions first had to be resolved.
Ukrainian and Russian negotiators tried for months to find answers to those questions. In September 1993, however, it became apparent that the bilateral discussions would not succeed. U.S. negotiators thus engaged in a trilateral process with Moscow and Kyiv. The exchanges played out over the fall and resulted in an agreement early in 1994. Presidents Bill Clinton, Boris Yeltsin and Leonid Kravchuk signed the statement on January 14 in Moscow.
The Trilateral Statement confirmed that Ukraine would eliminate all of the strategic nuclear weapons on its territory and accede to the NPT as a non-nuclear weapons state “in the shortest possible time.” In return for this, the statement provided that Kyiv receive:
Security assurances. The United States, Russia and Britain would provide security assurances to Ukraine, such as to respect its independence and to refrain from economic coercion. Those assurances were formally conveyed in the Budapest Memorandum of Security Assurances signed in December 1994. (Curiously, Kyiv has never invoked the memorandum, not even during its dispute with Moscow over Tuzla Island in 2003 or when the Russian government applied trade sanctions in 2013 to dissuade Ukraine from signing an association agreement with the European Union.)
Compensation for highly-enriched uranium (HEU). Russia agreed to provide fuel rods for Ukrainian nuclear reactors containing low enriched uranium equivalent to the HEU removed from the nuclear warheads transferred from Ukraine to Russia for dismantlement.
Elimination assistance. The United States agreed to make available substantial Nunn-Lugar Cooperative Threat Reduction assistance to cover the costs of eliminating the ICBMs, strategic bombers, ICBM silos and other nuclear infrastructure in Ukraine.
While there were minor hiccups, implementation of the Trilateral Statement went fairly smoothly. The last train with nuclear warheads from Ukraine arrived in Russia on June 1, 1996, and the last of the strategic bombers, ICBMs and ICBM silos were destroyed by 2001.
That was the time when people where genuinely thinking that Russia might someday join NATO. And the Cold War was over. An NATO was interested in "new threats" like fighting terrorism.So the pretext here then SSU is that ignoring the above trilateral agreement was because of the perceived threat of NATO expansion.
Not worth the paper it was written on then. — Deus
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.