I say just take the wretched bombs out already, aggressively, throughout, whether it takes lots or more or special or expensive tech or not.
They've been wreaking destruction for a long time and it's apparently spilling over.
It's not like shooting them down is going to kill anyone, at least that's very unlikely, rather the opposite.
Yep, keep heads cool, NATO shouldn't just retaliate. — jorndoe
Things people say and forget:
A sign of a "winning" army would be taking Kherson
— boethius
taking Kherson would be a turning point.
— boethius
Losing Kherson would be both bad militarily (likely thousands, if not tens of thousands, stuck and captured troops) as well as intensely embarrassing.
— boethius — Olivier5
I think it's useful for us and people following this thread to note that international relations are not legal relations, which has already been discussed by is worth repeating.
There is no guarantees in any international agreement as there is no world court and world police system that enforces agreements. — boethius
It is relevant to any deal because the annexations make the terms of any compromise to be about how much territory Russia is willing to cede to Ukraine to stop the war. — Paine
The Ukrainian state was not accepted as a legitimate governance of any of the territory up to the western borders. Having gone this far resisting the Russians, it would be ridiculous for the Ukrainians to let this condition continue. — Paine
That is why any possible agreement has to start with recognizing a Ukraine that is something more than a tool of foreign powers. A place where Russia does not have the right to remodel the government to its liking. — Paine
The Soviet Union couldn't continue the arms race and actually did collapse partly because of it (even if Americans tend to overemphasize this). Soviet Union was spending twice the percentage of GDP than the US was and it was failing to keep up in the technological race. You are correct in that the two Superpowers never trusted each other, but agreements could be found simply when there wasn't any other sustainable option. — ssu
US and Soviets had also deterrence means that Ukraine doesn't have though. — neomac
the US will choose the interpretation that fits their existing policy choice. — boethius
Basically both sides are simply forced to make agreements. And this is with this war in Ukraine too.So, even without any trust, both sides were able to "trust enough" that the other party saw it was in their own interest to abide by various nuclear control and proliferation treatise. — boethius
Again the typical anti-American view: Ukraine and the Ukrainians have no agency in this fight. After all, according to Isaac, why should Ukrainians even defend their country? Here's what I'm talking about. @Isaac's thinking is clearly showed in this quote from him months ago:Yes, this will be a litmus test for when the US plans to hang Ukraine out to dry like they did with Iraq, Libya and Afghanistan once they've milked the situation for all they think they can get out of it. — Isaac
Option 1 - Long drawn out war, thousands dead, crippled by debt, economy run by the IMF, regime run by corrupt politicians in the pocket of lobbyists benefiting the corporations and immiserating the poor. Blue and yellow flag over the parliament.
Option 2 - Less long war, fewer dead, less crippled by debt, less in thrall to the IMF, regime run by corrupt politicians in the pocket of oligarchs benefiting the corporations and immiserating the poor. Blue, red and white flag over the parliament.
Option 2 has fewer dead. — Isaac
LOL... It did succeed in recapturing Kherson. :-) — Olivier5
Basically both sides are simply forced to make agreements. And this is with this war in Ukraine too. — ssu
Negotiations will be successful if both sides, Putin and the Ukrainians, have no option to continue the war or continuing would be a very bad decision. Hence very likely the war will continue. — ssu
This is just foolish. At no point did either side threaten the other with a first strike nuclear launch if they broke or pulled out of any agreement.
The basis of diplomatic resolutions between the Soviet Union and the US was that each side saw it was in their best interest to avoid a large scale nuclear war, and each side was able to believe the other side believed that too, so some agreements could be reached. — boethius
But the idea that guarantees are needed to enter into an international agreement is just a high school level and completely ignorant understanding of international relations. There is never any guarantees. — boethius
You misunderstood my claim. I was referring precisely to the following condition: “each side saw it was in their best interest to avoid a large scale nuclear war”. The best interest of both US and Soviet Union was calculated by taking into account the deterrence means they both had (but Ukraine doesn’t have!), and this was pre-condition for the kind of agreements they could rationally pursue. — neomac
My impression is that you have no clue what you are talking about: — neomac
voluntary acceptance — neomac
The primary involved parties in the Ukrainian war are clearly interested in such “security guarantees”: Putin urges West to act quickly to offer security guarantees. (https://www.npr.org/2021/12/23/1067188698/putin-urges-west-to-act-quickly-to-offer-security-guarantees). — neomac
To the extent there is an international law and rational agents engage in it, there must be some reasonable application for it, independently from any arbitrarily high standard of reliability and compatibly with power balance/struggle concerns. — neomac
voluntary acceptance — neomac
obviously not as bad as losing on the field, positions overrun and thousands or tens of thousands of troops encircled. — boethius
Yes, they avoided total humiliation. Most importantly, they saved a lot of Russian and Ukrainian lives by deciding to withdraw from a position they were unable to hold. So they lived to fight another day. — Olivier5
I believe that the massive casualties among newly mobilized men incurred in the east over the past few weeks have taken a toll: all these wives protesting that their husbands are treated as cannon fodder and holding government to account... The mobilisation reduced Russian appetite for wasteful death. That's a positive. — Olivier5
but not some total disaster and strong signal Russia's military just can't compete with Ukrainian military — boethius
The signal is there alright: they were forced to withdraw from what their lord Putin sees as Russian territory. — Olivier5
The Russians are losing ground. — Olivier5
Gen. Mark A. Milley, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, has made the case in internal meetings that the Ukrainians have achieved about as much as they could reasonably expect on the battlefield before winter sets in and so they should try to cement their gains at the bargaining table, according to officials informed about the discussions — New York Times
First, the deterrence means was not a pre-condition of the agreement but what the agreement was about (we both have too much deterrence to our mutual detriment). — boethius
That Ukraine has no nuclear deterrence just means that it needs to consider the fact that Russia does.
If you feel it's "unfair" that stronger parties have more influence over events than weaker parties, I don't know what to say other than welcome to the real world. — boethius
But, ok, the question then comes up of what would actually make the US enforce the agreement? Especially if doing so risks nuclear confrontation with Russia they have zero rational reason to risk that for the perceived benefit of Ukraine (risking nuclear war doesn't necessarily benefit Ukraine in any net-present-value calculation of any plausible metric of human welfare, but let's assume it does for the sake of argument). — boethius
Ukraine's position now is basically "we'll start acting rationally if the world is changed to suit our irrational desires". — boethius
International agreements are all voluntary. And so, a "guarantee" is likewise a voluntary thing ... and therefore not any sort of actual guarantee. These sorts of words in these sorts of agreements are purely ornamental. — boethius
US can guarantee whatever it wants, doesn't mean it's going to do that. — boethius
The talk of guarantees has been some sort of actual guarantee, like US using nuclear weapons. — boethius
To the extent there is an international law and rational agents engage in it, there must be some reasonable application for it, independently from any arbitrarily high standard of reliability and compatibly with power balance/struggle concerns. — neomac
Is completely false, unless your just repeating what I stated and what you claim to have issue with. — boethius
International law is not "law" (in the sense of law within states) and "legal framework" is not a "legal system" (in the sense of legal system within states). Same language maybe used, but referencing completely different things. — boethius
The best interest of both US and Soviet Union was calculated by taking into account the deterrence means they both had (but Ukraine doesn’t have!), and this was pre-condition for the kind of agreements they could rationally pursue — neomac
If the West is involved in this war there is a reason and they want to weigh in about this agreement, Russia must deal with it, even if Russia thinks its "unfair" to them. — neomac
So what? State powers (and even criminal organizations) ground their power not just in brute force but also in consensus and reputation relative to their competitors, for their own selfish interest! — neomac
Dude, it's not up to you to determine how these security guarantees are implemented. The security guarantees do not need to consist in the US swearing on their mother's head that they are going to nuclear bomb Putin's ass if he defects the agreement and act accordingly. It could simply require the forms and degree of military cooperation between Ukraine and its guarantors. — neomac
You are claiming that "these sorts of agreements are purely ornamental". — neomac
I'm talking about https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_law
So if you have a problem with the standard usage of the term "international law", I don't care. — neomac
International relations include a legal framework based on voluntary acceptance — neomac
Say the three wise monkeys... — Olivier5
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.