Ukraine IV: Putin for Nobel Peace Prize

[Ferocious Veldt Roarer]

A war that Russia is guaranteed to lose?

Not until after millions die on both sides.

Power Politics isn't dead in America or Western Europe. The dissolution of NATO would make all of the member countries significantly weaker and more vulnerable. And they are going to just accept this...why exactly?

The aforementioned millions of citizens guaranteed to die. The same reason Hitler was allowed to take Czechoslovakia. Peace, basically, looks nicer than a world war, even if you need to throw someone under the bus.

But it would never come to that. Putin knows better than to start a war he can't possibly win.

If this war happens. Which I'm questioning. I'm not saying that I'm certain NATO won't stand up to him, mind you - but neither I share your optimistic view that it will. Obviously, Putin has some respect for the Treaty: Ukraine isn't a member (which he has always opposed vehemently), and there is no talk of the West intervening militarily. If he does the same to some peripheral NATO countries, there at least will be that talk - and, possible, only talk.

[Clueless Northman]

But it would never come to that. Putin knows better than to start a war he can't possibly win. He's always been a pretty pragmatic and cautious guy.

Definitely.

This is one of the reasons why comparisons with Munich are ludicrous. Hitler was definitely not cautious and thought himself sort of divinely inspired, invincble and shit, up until Stalingrad if not until D-Day. Stalin was paranoid and paranoidly cautious - he thought all the clues and evidences about Barbarossa were Nazi fake to push him to attack first in a pre-emptive strike.

Putin is probably not as paranoid, but he's way more cautious and rational than Hitler ever was. He's quite scared of a true showdown with NATO and this is one of the reasons why he's busy bullying every former Soviet Republic that isn't yet in EU/NATO, to avoid having more common border with the alliance, and to have some buffer states between mainland Russia and NATO lands. He's not going to take on NATO countries first; though if shit hit the fan and EU or NATO went to war over Ukraine, he would obviously run over the Baltic States.

That doesn't mean he's not a ruthless bastard trying to get as much as he can, of course. It's just that he's probbably fitter to get what he wants and keep it than an uncautious ruthless bastard, who would easily overstretch, thinking of himself as an unstoppable force.

But then, I don't think Hitler did judo.

[snake]

Seems Putin's handling of the events in Ukraine and Crimea, along with the Olympics, have boosted his popularity at home.

[Maithanet]

Not until after millions die on both sides.

The aforementioned millions of citizens guaranteed to die. The same reason Hitler was allowed to take Czechoslovakia. Peace, basically, looks nicer than a world war, even if you need to throw someone under the bus.

I think you are greatly overestimating the threat that Russia poses to the combined NATO armies. The Russian air force is inferior to the planes in Western Europe alone, notwithstanding what the US could send later. They would be destroyed in a matter of days. Are you suggesting that Russia is going to start launching missiles into civilian areas willy nilly? What would they hope to accomplish with that?

Obviously, a war with Russia would be very bloody, worse than anything the US or Western Europe has seen since WW2. But so long as nukes don't come into play, it wouldn't be world war 3; the sides are not sufficiently matched for that.

EDIT: In addition, the US isn't exactly a peacenik nation. We invaded Iraq for...some reason. There are a lot of politicians that would LOVE to rally around the flag for a war to protect our allies against Russian aggression.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

Maithenate,

If extending the nuclear umbrella would prevent massive NATO retaliation why wouldn't Russia try it? Does anyone think NATO would risk calling his bluff? Hell, he could rip NATO apart with a move like that. It would paralize the alliance and make everyone question its utility.

[Fez]

If this war happens. Which I'm questioning. I'm not saying that I'm certain NATO won't stand up to him, mind you - but neither I share your optimistic view that it will. Obviously, Putin has some respect for the Treaty: Ukraine isn't a member (which he has always opposed vehemently), and there is no talk of the West intervening militarily. If he does the same to some peripheral NATO countries, there at least will be that talk - and, possible, only talk.

Its not even a question of NATO, the US has military forces in the Baltic states, specifically 10 F-15s (it was 4 until yesterday) on air patrol duty. If Russia invaded, we're already there, and if even one of those planes got hit or gets involved (and it'd be hard for them to not get involved; their whole point is to get involved if anything goes down), forget invoking Article V, we're already at war.

[Shryke]

An independent report commissioned by the EU showed that Georgia started the conflict with it's attack on South Ossetia and that Russia had a right to defend it's peacekeepers. It also said Russia went to far when it pushed into Georgia temporarily. And it is a fact that South Ossetia and Abkhazia both fought for independence from Georgia when the SU broke up.

Nothing similar to that has happened in Crimea. Get your facts straight.

The difference so far is that the Ukrainian are smart enough not to fire that shot.

Which hasn't stopped the Russians from pushing into Ukrainian territory. And then denying they are doing it.

The Georgians screwed up by making it a shooting war, yes, but if you buy that Russia wasn't pushing to carve off South Ossetia and just waiting for Georgia to give them an excuse, you probably buy Putin's claims of no russian troops in Crimea.

[Maithanet]

Maithenate,

If extending the nuclear umbrella would prevent massive NATO retaliation why wouldn't Russia try it? Does anyone think NATO would risk calling his bluff? Hell, he could rip NATO apart with a move like that. It would paralize the alliance and make everyone question its utility.

Whether he even could try it would depend on the strategic situation in this hypothetical. If US, European and Russian planes are fighting each other over Estonia, extending the "nuclear umbrella" over your that area doesn't make any sense and would just be ignored.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

Maithenate,

I didn't realize we did have troops forward deployed and on the ground in the Baltics. That does make the situation harder for the Russians.

[snake]

The difference so far is that the Ukrainian are smart enough not to fire that shot.

Which hasn't stopped the Russians from pushing into Ukrainian territory. And then denying they are doing it.

The Georgians screwed up by making it a shooting war, yes, but if you buy that Russia wasn't pushing to carve off South Ossetia and just waiting for Georgia to give them an excuse, you probably buy Putin's claims of no russian troops in Crimea.

South Ossetia didn't want anything to do with Georgia. The war in 1992 was a pretty good indication of that as well as all the crap that went on afterwards.

Crimea never indicated it wanted to break with Ukraine. There was no fighting between them. There were no peacekeepers on the ground. It wasn't until Russian troops arrived that the separation talk started. Again, not the case with South Ossetia. So they are much different scenarios and very dissimilar.

[Shryke]

South Ossetia didn't want anything to do with Georgia. The war in 1992 was a pretty good indication of that as well as all the crap that went on afterwards.

Crimea never indicated it wanted to break with Ukraine. There was no fighting between them. There were no peacekeepers on the ground. It wasn't until Russian troops arrived that the separation talk started. Again, not the case with South Ossetia. So they are much different scenarios and very dissimilar.

That doesn't make them "much different scenarios" and I'm not sure why you think it does. Especially wrt Russian response.

[snake]

That doesn't make them "much different scenarios" and I'm not sure why you think it does. Especially wrt Russian response.

Of course it does make them much different. South Ossetia was actively pursuing independence. First through open conflict and then through provocations. That hasn't been the case in Crimea. Russia was actually part of a peacekeeping mission in South Ossetia and attacked Georgia after Georgia attacked it's forces there. Again not the case in Crimea.

South Ossetia and Abkhazia are much more akin to what happened in Kosovo rather than what is going on in Crimea.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

Snake,

Yet both involve Russia putting its military on the ground in former Soviet republic to facilitate its foreign policy goals. Both involve depriving that republic of a portion of its agreed upon territory.

[snake]

Snake,

Yet both involve Russia putting its military on the ground in former Soviet republic to facilitate its foreign policy goals. Both involve depriving that republic of a portion of its agreed upon territory.

Both involve Russia and it's military yup.

[Ferocious Veldt Roarer]

I think you are greatly overestimating the threat that Russia poses to the combined NATO armies. The Russian air force is inferior to the planes in Western Europe alone, notwithstanding what the US could send later. They would be destroyed in a matter of days. Are you suggesting that Russia is going to start launching missiles into civilian areas willy nilly? What would they hope to accomplish with that?

Ah, a nice, clean blitzkrieg, accomplished with air force alone, without needs to engage land troops. Not, say, a long and gruesome land war, against the largest country in the world. And you're sure that's what everybody will be anticipating and that's what will actually happen? Sir, I genuinely envy your optimism. Gee, it's as if nothing could possibly go wrong!

EDIT: In addition, the US isn't exactly a peacenik nation. We invaded Iraq for...some reason. There are a lot of politicians that would LOVE to rally around the flag for a war to protect our allies against Russian aggression.

And the American taxpayer, after Iraq and Afghanistan, still isn't weary even a little?

Its not even a question of NATO, the US has military forces in the Baltic states, specifically 10 F-15s (it was 4 until yesterday) on air patrol duty. If Russia invaded, we're already there, and if even one of those planes got hit or gets involved (and it'd be hard for them to not get involved; their whole point is to get involved if anything goes down), forget invoking Article V, we're already at war.

That's the status quo for today. I'm more worried about a few years from now. Obviously, after annexing Crimea, Putin will pretend to be civilized for a while, and I'm afraid we'll buy his act.

[Maithanet]

Ah, a nice, clean blitzkrieg, accomplished with air force alone, without needs to engage land troops. Not, say, a long and gruesome land war, against the largest country in the world. And you're sure that's what everybody will be anticipating and that's what will actually happen? Sir, I genuinely envy your optimism. Gee, it's as if nothing could possibly go wrong!

And the American taxpayer, after Iraq and Afghanistan, still isn't weary even a little?

The example I used was of Desert Storm on a larger scale, which obviously had a ground component.

NATO wouldn't need to conquer Russia, just defeat it. Which is why I used the example of Desert Shield/Storm. Start with establishing air supremacy and a defensive perimeter around nearby states. Then if Russia doesn't pull back, invade with overwhelming force. It wouldn't be the curbstomp that Desert Storm was, but it would nonetheless be a pretty decisive victory.

Do you really doubt that all of NATO could and would win a strategic victory over Russia in a conventional war? Because if so, I refer you to this chart. NATO as a whole is outspending Russia by a factor of ten, and that advantage has been maintained since 1990.

[Myrddin]

The Russian non-Russian occupation of Crimea feels so much like mafia tactics, it's not even funny. They're there for "protection" of the Russian speaking populace.

Question (because I don't know and haven't seen it brought up):

Has Crimea ever had even a rumbling of a secession movement prior to the last few weeks?

[The Undead Martyr]

Russia's been an empire since the 1800s. Aside from a brief revolutionary period under the Bolsheviks (pre Stalin; post-Stalin the Soviet state was some sort of quasi-feudal cronyist freak, and made hardly the barest pretenses towards equality or liberty) it has remained so. The Ukraine is one of many targets of Russian imperialism, for very obvious reasons- access to the Black Sea, lots of good farmland, the Crimea.

I highly doubt this trend will be contested or reversed any time soon. From the state's perspective, there are few reasons beyond "America!" or "fuck the Russians" to intervene, and many many many reasons not to intervene in the Ukraine. It's been in Russia's sphere of influence for decades and will not relinquish its control without a fight, and fighting Russia, though likely to have an ultimate US win (seriously we outnumber something like the next 14 Air Forces combined) would also likely have a nuclear exchange, i.e. go really bad really fast. And limiting Russia's influence in Ukraine is not nearly valuable enough for an armed conflict with Russia itself.

What we should do about it, irrespective of statist realpolitik is a very different and more painful question... honestly I don't think there is anything we can or should do, aside from possibly sponsor on the ground insurgents or level sanctions. You know, Obama's "weak and passive" stuff. :rolleyes:

[The Undead Martyr]

The Russian non-Russian occupation of Crimea feels so much like mafia tactics, it's not even funny. They're there for "protection" of the Russian speaking populace.

Question (because I don't know and haven't seen it brought up):

Has Crimea ever had even a rumbling of a secession movement prior to the last few weeks?

Sort of reminds me of Panama's US-sponsored secession. That is, quite spontaneous and convenient for the backer.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

TUM,

Hypocrisy is not a defense in Realpolitik. Why is it repeatedly trotted out?