@RiffRaff @DEFCON Warning System Hey if you want to create a thread go for it. Transfer/clear the debate off this thread move it to new thread.I was actually going to suggest that if DN wanted to continue the debate. It's a debate that I think is well worth having - just not in a crisis thread.
Very good thoughts there. Thanks for sharing.I was reading a doc from Ukraine on the divorce of Ukraine from the USSR in the 90’s.
Their was some debate at the time internally about their nuclear status.
The prevailing view at the time was a status of non-aligned non-proliferation.
And of course Russia and the US wanted them non-nuclear.
Non-proliferation won out.
Although I recognize citizen 21 is correct in the assessment that even with nukes they would get ground pounded. They wouldn’t be able to mount a significant threat to Russia unless they had a significant number of them and delivery systems to reach targets of importance. Tactical nukes to repel a military push are problematic because Russia would immediately escalate. So it would have to be strategic nukes and a lot of them.
That’s problematic because a program that size would be very hard to hide and that would bring an immense amount of international pressure and possibly Immediate Russia intervention. Intervention that the west would have a difficult time arguing against. At least on the surface anyway.
So that brings us back to the understandings of the Budapest agreement. There were security guarantees in the agreement from the west which were never brought to fruition. One could argue they should be protected by NATO but there is no legal agreement there. Everyone was feeling good and peace was in the air no ones going to infringe on Ukraine’s boarders.
Then 2014 came and everyone in the west said oh shit! We’ve got to do something here. And this is where we are with the Ukrainian issue.
I fully recognize much of the leadership and power structure in Ukraine is probably corrupt. Citizen21 you’ve expounded on how your own nation is corrupt and ran by oligarchs.
I’ve expounded on how my nations is corrupt in many ways and ran by our own oligarchs. My nation is in a fight with the citizens trying to wrest some of their control away from them, and that issue is still yet to be decided.
So being a corrupt puppet government doesn’t preclude them from going nuclear nor the right to security for the mat nations boarders.
So the question in my mind should the topic of security guarantees for Ukraine be revisited?
I don’t know the answer but I do know Russia running military maneuvers once or twice a year on the boarder doesn’t help the situation. Taking the whole of Crimea was a direct violation of the agreements. Those actions and the actions of Belarus today only point to antagonism and expansion.
Should we say oh well Ukraine is corrupt and not worth the concern. How much of Ukraine is acceptable to be whittled away. Is Mariupol and the coastal route to Crimea an acceptable loss to Ukraine to maintain peace. Putin has done it once what’s to say he won’t again.
No I don’t think nuclear blackmail would work against a nation with an overwhelming number of nuclear weapons.
If they have nothing else to lose it's a very reasonable thing to assume IF they have a few devices to use as blackmail.Oh oh so your going to punch me in the mouth are you. Well I’ll knee cap you and break both your arms and fracture your skull so go ahead swing away.
Maybe but remember mad is predicated on mutually assured destruction.If they have nothing else to lose it's a very reasonable thing to assume IF they have a few devices to use as blackmail.
I understand what your saying. But nuclear blackmail is different than the strategy of M.A.D...Maybe but remember mad is predicated on mutually assured destruction.
Too many details to get into:But one thing missing from the analysis is nuclear blackmail. Ukraine simply makes a threat to fry a few Russian cities and what exactly is Russia going to do? Call their bluff? What if Ukraine goes further and demonstrates they have the weapons? Then what?
Any kind of blackmail is usually carried out by a weaker foe who can't possibly take down their counter foe. So they seek to stop them through blackmail instead of confrontation.I understand what your saying. But nuclear blackmail is different than the strategy of M.A.D...
Your right that Ukraine could never hope to deter Russia nuclearly. But it could go the blackmail rout if all is lost feeling kicks in.
Nuclear blackmail can indeed be carried out even if your foe is much stronger than you & your facing a loaded gun to the head.
Who says they have to use missiles to deliver the nuclear devices. One could easily drive or walk it into Russia. > Border shared by Russia & Ukraine has a length of 2,295.04 kilometres (1,426.07 mi) of which 1,974.04 kilometres (1,226.61 mi) is land border.<oversaturated with Anti-Missile protection,
Russia has seen war on their land and cities. Probably still an important part of Russian history in schools and the Misery and triumph of Stalingrad. It’s only one generation ago.But one thing missing from the analysis is nuclear blackmail. Ukraine simply makes a threat to fry a few Russian cities and what exactly is Russia going to do? Call their bluff?