Thanks, Food for thought.You're talking about the Budapest Memorandum. One of the countries in question is Russia.
Russia - General Discussion.
- Thread starter Feanor
- Start date
- Thread Starter Thread Starter
- #582
Let me expand a little. Much has been made over the past 8 years in various internet discussions that Ukraine voluntarily gave up it's huge nuclear arsenal, inherited from Soviet times, in exchange for security assurances and that had Ukraine not done this, they would have a credible defense and deterrent against Russia. I believe this is fundamentally false.Thanks, Food for thought.
Maintaining a credible nuclear triad is a very expensive business. ICBMs are incredibly costly and maintenance intensive. By 2014 Ukraine's high-readiness airmobile brigades had a hard time deploying a full btln on short notice. To imagine that Ukraine would have been able to retain any large quantity of silo or road-mobile ICBMs is fantasy. They couldn't keep their trucks running. This of course applies to the strategic bomber fleet as well. Even Russia today has a hard time keeping bombers ready for take off. Ukraine of course never got any SLBM carriers. And this is without considering that Ukraine needed aid from east and west after independence, aid that could have been withheld had they insisted on keeping their arsenal intact.
Ukraine quite possible would have been able to retain some quantity of tactical nuclear weapons. Between pressure from the west, especially Europe, they likely would have had to reduce this arsenal quite a bit. It's an open question they'd be able to keep it at all, but not impossible. Ukraine has 3 main delivery systems for those in service. They have Tochka ballistic missiles, Su-24 bombers, and various artillery systems (even the Msta-S can use a very low yield nuclear artillery shell). So let's consider the possibility of using them in 2014 in either Crimea or the Donbass.
First and foremost deploying tactical nukes would set off all kinds of alarms. Ukrainian government agencies are lousy not only with Russian spies, but with ordinary corruption, and with just people sympathetic to Russia and/or unsympathetic to the Kiev government. Deploying the tactical nukes in secret would be almost impossible. Then there's the question of targets. Nuking your own peninsula or your own cities in rebel hands isn't really viable. Nuking Russia would not only risk retaliation in kind, but is unlikely to succeed. If it's a bomb, you would have to fly a Soviet-era Su-24 over a Russian target worth nuking. You could fire a Tochka missile with a special warhead, but not only do you risk it getting intercepted (S-300Vs are reportedly capable of it and by 2014 Russia had S-300V4s), it also has limited range (120kms for the Tochka-U variant, 90 for the regular), and going nuclear would escalate the conflict in a bad way almost immediately. Using it against Russian territory would likely lead to open Russian involvement, using it on your own territory is not only problematic (it could and would alienate much of Ukraine's own population, a country nuking it's own people) but it's also unclear that this would work. The rebels mainly held on to major cities that Ukraine could not effectively assault. Again nuking your own urban centers isn't viable, hitting rebel positions in the field is, but is also problematic and it's unclear that this would help. Ukrainian forces could break through rebel lines conventionally, and did so on many occasions. They ran a long mobile operation around Lugansk, they assaulted along the Russo-Ukrainian border, sealing half of it, they pushed through Debaltsevo and into Ilovaysk. They were defeated on the counter attack by highly mobile Russian forces that appeared out of nowhere and delivered relatively fast blows. Russian forces that relied on advantages in C4ISR, and their ability to disrupt the same for Ukraine (UAVs and EW were crucial). At Ilovaysk and Debaltsevo Russia was willing to talk and let Ukrainian troops leave, provided they left heavy weapons behind, which could have been an opening for nuking those forces, but it's likely they wouldn't have risked that had the nuclear option been on the table.
In short, it's unlikely for political, technological, and even financial reasons that Ukraine could have kept its nuclear arsenal, and had they kept it they would likely not have gotten much use out of it. The truth is that Russian moves in Crimea and the Donbass were made possible by the degradation of Ukrainian state institutions, extreme corruptions, and the pro-Russian sympathies of large swathes of the population and even government officials. With those factors in place, nukes don't save the day. The kind of Ukraine that could have kept and been ready to employ a tactical nuclear arsenal against Russia is the kind of Ukraine that Russia could never have made those moves against in the first place.
Breaking news: Germany says Nordstream 2 cannot move forward after Russia's decision to recognize the break-away provinces in Eastern Ukraine. This is a painful step to take for Germany, they desperately need gas, however I think it's the right thing to do, and I fully support it. Russia needs to understand that their actions come at a cost.
Ukraine crisis: Germany halts Nord Stream 2 approval | News | DW | 22.02.2022
As I said before: Russia will lose much more than what it will gain by choosing aggression and not diplomacy. This is just the beginning of the price it will pay for trying to rebuild it's empire using (hybrid) war tactics.
Ukraine crisis: Germany halts Nord Stream 2 approval | News | DW | 22.02.2022
As I said before: Russia will lose much more than what it will gain by choosing aggression and not diplomacy. This is just the beginning of the price it will pay for trying to rebuild it's empire using (hybrid) war tactics.
GermanHerman
Active Member
Quite a painfull step, just weeks ago Scholtz called N2 "just a deal between private businesses".
This would mean a further escalation, I cant see ukraine giving up these territories without resistance.
I'm.pretty sure that's something it fully understands and has done for a while.
Even if the Russian political leadership was literally deaf and completely out of touch with reality, the West has been repeating the same thing over and over again for so long that by now the Russians would have got and understood the message pretty loud and clear.
As I've said before I'm pretty sure the Russians have long factored in what they stand to lose and their actual ability to withstand and mitigate sanctions - for them it might be penalties worth incurring if they achieve what they want in line with their security/strategic concerns.
Is war more likely after Russia recognised rebel statelets?
And what could happen next?
''I never believed in the big war, with Kyiv pillaged and all of that, and I still don’t. But there are reasons to be nervous,” Mikhail Pogrebisnky, a Kyiv-based analyst, told Al Jazeera.''
''Even those who didn’t think a full-scale war was going to happen find the new situation alarming.
Much depends on President Volodymyr Zelenskyy’s government – and its pro-Western political tilt that ignores the needs and hopes of eastern Ukraine where Russian-speakers are a majority and where disruption of economic ties with Moscow badly hurt the economy, he said.
“If Kyiv keeps moving in the wake of America’s interests, not Ukraine’s, and if Kyiv identifies itself as the front line of deterring Russia, then it may lead to a more serious military operation” on the part of Moscow, Pogrebisnky said.
Russia’s recognition of Donetsk’s and Luhansk’s “administrative borders” may prompt Moscow to issue a political ultimatum that could change the very fabric of Ukraine as an independent nation.''
Last edited:
Actually I am not at all sure that they expected Germany to stop Nordstream 2 already already at this stage... Many observers have been surprised that this happened so quickly.
It's not just about "Russia's security/strategic concern", it's probably more about Putin and his concern for his own security... I suggest you re-read the link provided in the Donbass thread: The Reason Putin Would Risk War
Maybe not at this early stage but even though the Germans made little or no mention of it; the Russians were surely aware that Nordstream 2 was a tool which could be employed against them.
That's the opinion of Anne Applebaum. She may be right, she may be wrong - I'm not in a position to say. Also, is it just Putin who feels that Russia has been sidelined and wronged by the West? Is everything which has happened since he came into power about ''his own security''? That clear cut?
I suggest you read this. BTW the writer isn't on a pro Russia agenda; as he makes clear - '' need to stress at the outset that by trying to understand Moscow’s hostile stance and the way it is currently threatening to use military force against Ukraine, I do not endorse Moscow’s belligerent attitude or the dictatorial role that Putin is playing in what is now a potentially very dangerous situation for peace in Europe and, indeed, globally''
''If we are to attempt to understand why Russia is behaving in this potentially very dangerous manner, we need to begin by recalling what happened to the Soviet superpower as it collapsed in 1991 and how that calamity continues to affect current strategic thinking in Moscow. Putin recalls the Soviet collapse as a time when gross injustice was done to the Russian people: ‘It was only when Crimea ended up as part of a different country that Russia realised that it had not been simply robbed, but plundered.’ The UK ambassador to Moscow from 1988 to 1992, Rodric Braithwaite, observes that the disintegration of the USSR at the end of 1991 was a moment of triumph for the West, but for the Russians it brought national humiliation, domestic chaos, great poverty, and even famine. ''
Why Putin sees the US, NATO and Ukraine as a threat | The Strategist
Why has Russia’s President Vladimir Putin become so aggressive in his attitude to the US, NATO and Ukraine? In this article, I begin by examining the disintegration of the former Soviet Union and how it ...
www.aspistrategist.org.au
''Former CIA director and US defence secretary Robert Gates recently stated that almost everything Putin does at home and abroad these days is rooted in the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991, which for him marked the collapse of the four-century-old Russian Empire and Russia’s position as a great power. Gates remarks that Putin’s current actions ‘however deplorable, are understandable’. Since becoming president in 1999, Putin has been focused on returning Russia to its historical role as a major power and its historical policy of creating a buffer of subservient states on its periphery—the so-called near ''abroad.''
''In the summer of 1991, the expectation of a new Marshall Plan among the Soviet elites became almost universal. But many in Washington wanted to break up the Soviet Union for security reasons. Treasury secretary Nicholas Brady advised President George H.W. Bush that America’s strategic priority was to see the Soviets become ‘a third-rate power, which is what we want’. During the 1990s, Zubok claims that 70–80% of Russians lived in poverty with the old Soviet social safety net gone and with rampant crime and mafia-like rule in most towns and regions.''
''Yeltsin warned that NATO’s enlargement could lead to a new division in Europe. The US secretary of state, James Baker, reassured Gorbachev that NATO would ‘not shift one inch eastward from its present position’ once it had safely taken in a reunited Germany. Those words were never recorded in any mutually agreed formula.''
''Neither was the issue of Crimea raised when the leaders of what became the new countries called the Russian Federation, Ukraine and Belarus, met in secret in the Viskuli hunting lodge near Minsk on 7 December 1991. It was there that they agreed to the dissolution of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. According to Zubok’s book, before Yeltsin’s departure from Moscow his adviser, Galina Starovoitova, suggested he offer the Ukrainian leadership an option of negotiated changes to the borders of Ukraine after a moratorium of three to five years. She was concerned about Crimea.''
''Putin, of course, takes an entirely different point of view. He believes that the Americans conspired to break up his country and encourage the creation of a separate country called Ukraine. We are now in a situation where the animosity between Moscow and Washington over NATO’s future and the existence of an independent Ukraine has become central to the future of peace in Europe. As Gates observes, Putin’s embrace of the strategy of securing Russia’s near abroad is seen in his actions in Belarus, Moldova, Transnistria, Georgia, the 2020 Armenia–Azerbaijan conflict, Kazakhstan and now—most dramatically - Ukraine.
GermanHerman
Active Member
Nordstream Two was already considered dead in most peoples eyes. US soft power had pushed germany for a long time to abandon the project and only the realities of german dependency on russian gas prevented that those in power (first Merkel, now Scholtz) just outright gave up on it.
But in all reality every serious observer in Germany knew that Nordstream 2 was doomed due to US objections.
But in all reality every serious observer in Germany knew that Nordstream 2 was doomed due to US objections.
- Thread Starter Thread Starter
- #589
I'm genuinely not sure why they made this move. I don't see what it accomplishes. In a way it could even be convenient for Ukraine since it lets them drop the Minsk accords and blame Russia for it, quietly burying their own unwillingness to implement them in obscurity.
That's not what she said.
Also, Russia and Putin knows fully well that NATO is not a "threat" to Russia, that's utter bullshit. The problem with NATO (and EU) is more that it limits the possibilities of Russia to regain parts of their empire, and also not compatible with their world view, they prefer not a rules based system and democratic countries with well defined borders reaching agreements through diplomacy. Putin and his cronies want to have a strong, non-democratic influence in their neighborhood.
In any case, a feeling of being "sidelined and wronged" is no valid reason for invading a neighbor country. Russia is a strong military power and cannot be ignored, but the West needs to unite and push back on all attempts from Russia at weakening the rules based system, and also attempts at weakening democracies, both mature and developing. And Russia must be punished for further invading Ukraine.
Why would Germany dropping Nordstream 2 let Ukraine drop the Minsk accord?
Also Ukraine was not "unwilling to implement them". Ukraine has previously signaled willingness to implement the Minsk II, but according to their interpretation of Minsk II. Russia refused to accept Ukraine's interpretation of Minsk II, and also refused to enter discussions to try to find common grounds. Now Minsk has been killed completely by Russia's actions.
It wasn't, no. It was in reference to what you said in an earlier post.
Alright then, I'll be more accurate with my choice of words. Russia is doing what it's doing be cause of a series of events and policies which have occurred since the end of the Cold War which it sees as detrimental to its security and interests.
So you keep saying but was that a matter of dispute? The discussion - on my part at least - was on what makes Putin tick and why he's doing what he's doing. Whether we agree with what he's doing or not, whether we understand or whether we want to try to see things from a Russian perspective in order to.gain a better understanding of things is up to the individual but the fact is Putin didn't get out of bed one chilly morning and at Theodore of the moment decided to be confrontational/aggressive/provocative.
Also if we're solely going to stick to the narrative that Russia is wrong, threats it perceives are actually ''bullshit'', it must be ''punished'', it must be made to ''understaad'', NATO is blameless, etc then in the long run it would be a very one sided discussion and things would get somewhat dull.
Fine on paper but in actual reality the ''punishmen'' is pointless if it doesn't lead to the desired results..I fully understand the need for sanctions but if ''punishments'' don't work what next? What happens if the West runs out of ''punishments''?
Last edited:
Probably because it was the main ace Germany had up its sleeve, because it was something which would hit the Russians hard bad and because it was politically expedient given the circumstances.
I agree with you on this and my understanding was that Ukraine did not have the activation codes either and that these were still in the possession of the Russian Government. Now there may or may not have been a way around this, I don't know, but my understanding was that Ukraine could not have put them to use any time soon.
- Thread Starter Thread Starter
- #595
Minsk is killed by Russian recognition of the LDNR. And yes Ukraine was unwilling to implement them. There are no "interpretations" when the document clearly requires wide autonomy for the Donbass, and Ukraine openly refuses to do this.
- Thread Starter Thread Starter
- #596
Sorry, my post was vague and seems to have resulted in multiple misunderstandings. I don't see what Russian moves to support and recognize the LDNR accomplishes.
According to Putin, Ukraine is now planning to develop nuclear weapons -- a poor attempt at disinformation from Mr. Putin, and inconsistent with several of his other claims, including the one that Ukraine is about to enter NATO...
Ukraine crisis: International condemnation as Putin sends troops into eastern Ukraine | World News | Sky News
I partly disagree -- they are using those events and policies you are referring to, as a pretext to a) weaken democracies all around, in particular in Eastern Europe, to secure Putin's future and b) as a pretext to try to rebuild it's glorious empire. If security from the "NATO threat" really was their main concern, they should have gone for diplomacy instead of aggression, that would have been much cheaper, and also more effective. Again, we come back to the fable of the North Wind and the Sun.
I though we were discussing both.
I cannot recall having said that NATO is "blameless"; neither is EU for that matter. Both EU and NATO should have acted more resolutely much earlier, and in particular in 2014. Also I think Putin fully understands what he is doing, which does not make it any "better", it actually makes his actions even more deplorable.
The problem is from their perspective they might have engaged in diplomacy but failed to get the results they desired from diplomacy, due to various factors. Like I said all that's happening did not happen in a vacuum or was decided upon overnight. I'm not trying to emphasis who is right or wrong but to try and give a balanced narrative.
Again I will offer the opinion that the Russians are aware of the fable and the consequences of their actions.
I was discussing the events and policies which stretch back as far the end of the Cold War which have led us to where we are and the need to try and view or understand things from the Russian perspective in order to gain a better picture of things.
Well your definition of ''blameless'' and mine in the context of this topic/discussion differs.
Your idea of NATO not being ''blameless'' is because it should have been more ''resolute''. Mine is that it should have realised that various policies it was undertaking and had been for a while would have drawn a response from Russia and that it's inevitable that how Russia viewed things would be somewhat different from how it was seen in the West.
He knows fully well what he's doing, how to get what he wants and how far he can push things. He also understands his opponents better than they do him. Everything he's done so far has been after thorough deliberation.
Last edited: