Merged Ukraine erupts in riots and general strike.

[McHrozni]

How would it deter Russia if such weapons are not to be used under any circumstances?

They could be used, if existence of Ukraine was threatened. Russian storm troopers in Kiev, or nukes used against Ukraine are two such options. By taking the very possibility of a military victory (mutual destruction is by definition a draw) away from mr. Putin, you automatically put a cap as to how far he'd be willing or able to escalate the conflict.

Besides, Russia also has nuclear weapons of course, and would they be a deterrent to the attacks that you favour Ukraine makes on Russia's fleet?

The attacks on Russian fleet would only be conducted in the event of a full-scale invasion of Ukraine. Putin has bragged he could be in Kiev in three weeks if he did so, so it is a scenario that must taken seriously. It's just a way of putting a much, much greater price tag on an invasion. It's not a viable deterrent against nukes, but it is a viable deterrent against a full-scale invasion. It's similar to those pre-placed IEDs I mentioned. His army could still overcome both threats of course, but the losses would be too high even for his PR machine to explain, and for his country to bear (ships are costly and take time to build, plus tend to take lives to dozens to hundreds of sailors in one strike).

McHrozni

 

[Craig B]

Who said anything about using them?

Up to that point, nobody. But then somebody did. Guess who!

They could be used, if existence of Ukraine was threatened.

As you say, if you think that's self contradictory, you don't understand the principles of deterrence.

Well, I do see a teensy contradiction in your exposition of the principle, but never mind.

 

[Aber]

http://news.yahoo.com/guns-fall-silent-ukraines-donetsk-poroshenko-orders-ceasefire-005244850.html

What's the point of negotiating truces with people who have no desire to follow them?

The Russian rebels have already vowed to break the truce.

Its like negotiating a truce with ISIS, or Hamas. They simply use it as an opportunity to rearm, or they don't follow them at all.

Political cover, making it easier to get the moral high ground.

Merkel and Hollande can claim they have done everything possible for peace.

Poroshenko can claim the same, and get on-going economic support from the west.

I interprete the extension of EU sanctions today as a signal that Merkel found the negotiations at Minsk and the aftermath as evidence that Putin was not acting in good faith, and that if fighting continues we will see further sanctions, and eventually weapon supplies.

 

[McHrozni]

Up to that point, nobody. But then somebody did. Guess who!

I don't know where you're getting these ideas from, but I think I better elaborate.

Russia has threatened to use nuclear weapons against Ukraine on several occasions. Ukraine has no answer to such attacks. The only way we can certainly prevent such an attack from happening is by providing Ukraine means to retaliate if it does occur.

If nukes are used against an enemy that can adequately reply, you'd be better off if you didn't have any in the first place. The reasons are obvious: your country will suffer such extensive damage that conquered territory will never repay for it. Even if they are used against an enemy that has no adequate reply your international standing and future relations will still make the exercise expensive to boot. US is still getting bad press over Hiroshima and Nagasaki, which are generally believed to have been instrumental in ending the bloodiest part of the bloodiest war in history of mankind. Imagine the bad press Russia would get, for ending a conflict it created, against a nation they consider brothers.

On the other hand, merely by making threats to which Ukraine can't reply, Putler applies constant and severe pressure to Ukraine. Even if Ukraine could militarily defeat the rebels with all the force of Russia behind them, the threat of nuclear strike from Russia would likely stay their hand. So they're in a corner: they know no matter what they do, they can't win. Russia can, and eventually will, if this goes on for long enough. The only way Ukraine can win is by removing that threat permanently.

This is what I meant by saying nukes are extremely useful, as long as they aren't used.

Chances are Putin is smart enough to know what I wrote above and is planning on just that. It's also entirely possible he is not, and would nuke Kiev, Lviv, Dnepropetrovsk and several other cities over a few thousand soldier deaths, and then commit to den Endlösung den Ukrainenfrage afterwards, come hell or high water. Understandably, Ukrainians would want to prevent that. I would prefer that didn't happen too.

<snip>

Edited by Loss Leader: 

Edited for Rules 0/12

 

[Caper]

Whose side should I be on?

 

[CapelDodger]

Putin has threatened Ukraine and the West with nukes over this conflict at least three or four times now.

Putin's a blowhard but he's not going to drop nukes upwind of himself.

Ukraine has no viable response to that.

Except to ignore it. Or make it up and then ignore it - or better, "defy" threats which are not remotely credible.

The only way to ensure it doesn't escalate into a nuclear war is to ensure Russia would be crippled for a few generations by the response.

You must have trouble sleeping at night, what with all the incredible dangers an active imagination can conjure up after sundown.

(I only have trouble sleeping if I haven't had a drink. Do I let that worry me? Nah.)

 

[McHrozni]

Putin's a blowhard but he's not going to drop nukes upwind of himself.

Read my argument. You clearly didn't.

McHrozni

 

[CapelDodger]

There is no contradiction, but it is possible you didn't understand my message

Now that's credible, and something that might concern you.

Lets actively imagine a scene : Putin comes into the office one morning in a terrible mood because he slept badly : "To hell with this," he growls, "Nuke Kiev. They've had their chance". "Da, mein Fuhrer", reply his aides, and hurry from the room.

Do they :
(a) come back a few moments later with a straitjacket and taser?

(b) come back with a piece and give him the old-school double-tap retirement package?

(c) obey the order, pour some drinks, and wave goodbye to everything they have in life or ever might have had?

I'm thinking a or b but YMMV.

 

[CapelDodger]

Read my argument. You clearly didn't.

McHrozni

Mine trumps it.

 

[McHrozni]

Now that's credible, and something that might concern you.

Lets actively imagine a scene : Putin comes into the office one morning in a terrible mood because he slept badly : "To hell with this," he growls, "Nuke Kiev. They've had their chance". "Da, mein Fuhrer", reply his aides, and hurry from the room.

Do they :
(a) come back a few moments later with a straitjacket and taser?

(b) come back with a piece and give him the old-school double-tap retirement package?

(c) obey the order, pour some drinks, and wave goodbye to everything they have in life or ever might have had?

I'm thinking a or b but YMMV.

Eh. I wrote in quite substantial detail why Russian nuclear threat is real and needs to be neutralized, and you come with this pathetic reply?

<snip>

Edited by Loss Leader: 

Edited for Rule 0

 

[angrysoba]

Chances are Putin is smart enough to know what I wrote above and is planning on just that. It's also entirely possible he is not, and would nuke Kiev, Lviv, Dnepropetrovsk and several other cities over a few thousand soldier deaths, and then commit to den Endlösung den Ukrainenfrage afterwards, come hell or high water. Understandably, Ukrainians would want to prevent that. I would prefer that didn't happen too.

Putin's not going to nuke Kiev, or anywhere else.

If you don't understand it now you probably aren't qualified to talk here, sorry

Well, not only do I bet Putin won't launch nukes on Ukraine, I also bet that Ukraine won't be given nukes by anybody. It would be a ridiculous move because whoever hands over a nuke no longer has much say in how they are used or what becomes of them later.

 

[CapelDodger]

Eh. I wrote in quite substantial detail why Russian nuclear threat is real and needs to be neutralized, and you come with this pathetic reply?

If you read it carefully you'll realise it's a perfectly adequate response.

<snip>

Edited by Loss Leader: 

Edited for Rule 0

 

[CapelDodger]

Well, not only do I bet Putin won't launch nukes on Ukraine, I also bet that Ukraine won't be given nukes by anybody. It would be a ridiculous move because whoever hands over a nuke no longer has much say in how they are used or what becomes of them later.

Quite. Those things would fetch a fortune on the black market, and it's not as if there's much else left in Ukraine to steal.

I'd give them artillery-targeting radar, though, under close supervision. It's technically non-lethal and would save civilian lives.

 

[Border Reiver]

Quite. Those things would fetch a fortune on the black market, and it's not as if there's much else left in Ukraine to steal.

I'd give them artillery-targeting radar, though, under close supervision. It's technically non-lethal and would save civilian lives.

I believe that Counter-Battery Radar is part of what is being suggested as non-lethal military aid to Ukraine.

If the ceasefire ever progresses to a point where the parties want a peacekeeping type force this would be definitely be high on the list of troop types to deploy as the operation of the system would pinpoint who is breaking the truce. Which means that neither side will agree to it, or trust it if it were. Most such systems are either in the hands of NATO countries (and therefore the operators would be suspect), or Russian aligned countries (and therefore the operators would be suspect).

 

[McHrozni]

Well, not only do I bet Putin won't launch nukes on Ukraine, I also bet that Ukraine won't be given nukes by anybody. It would be a ridiculous move because whoever hands over a nuke no longer has much say in how they are used or what becomes of them later.

Pray tell, where did you get the idea that the concern is Putler nuking Ukraine out of the blue?

McHrozni

 

[crescent]

I'd give them artillery-targeting radar, though, under close supervision. It's technically non-lethal and would save civilian lives.

Better communications gear could help, too. The Ukrainians have some counter-battery radar, but it only works for shorter range projectiles like mortars. There has been hesitancy to give them longer-range counter battery radar out of fear that the long range fire might be coming directly from within Russia, and Ukraine might be tempted to fire at it once pinpointed. Ukrainian fire directly into Russia could give Russia the pretext it needs to intervene more overtly.

Russia has signals intelligence units in Ukraine, and there are reports of the counter-battery radar being fired upon as soon as it is used. Ukrainian radio communications are also targeted for enemy fire as soon as used. Some of the more advanced NATO/American radio gear is supposedly harder to pinpoint.

The catch with all high-tech gear is that Russia would get a chance to learn how to counter it, and would probably get their hands on some of it. Part of NATO's technological advantage comes from Russia's lack of access to NATO equipment. Giving it to Ukraine could change that to NATO's disadvantage.

 

[Andy_Ross]

Putin has no intention of Nuking anyone, he knows the first one that goes bang will mean the end of Russia as it will escalate in to WW3 in minutes.

 

[jimbob]

BBC story covering the Far Right in Ukraine

Only one government minister has links to nationalist parties - though he is in no way a neo-Nazi or fascist. And the speaker of parliament, Volodymyr Groysman, is Jewish. He has the third most powerful position in the country after the president and prime minister.

But Ukrainian officials and many in the media err to the other extreme. They claim that Ukrainian politics are completely fascist-free. This, too, is plain wrong.

Azov Battalion

As Mr Korotkykh's case demonstrates, the ultra-nationalists have proven to be effective and dedicated fighters in the brutal war in the east against Russian-backed separatists and Russian forces, whose numbers also include a large contingent from Russia's far right.

As a result, they have achieved a level of acceptance, even though most Ukrainians are unfamiliar with their actual beliefs.

The volunteer Azov Battalion is a case in point.

Azov is just one of more than 50 volunteer groups fighting in the east, the vast majority of which are not extremist, yet it seems to enjoy special backing from some top officials:
Interior Minister Arsen Avakov and his deputy Anton Gerashchenko actively supported the parliament candidacy of Andriy Biletsky, the Azov and Patriot of Ukraine commander
Vadim Troyan, another top Azov official and Patriot of Ukraine member, was recently named police chief for the Kiev region
Mr Korotkykh is also an Azov member

Ukraine's media have been noticeably silent on this subject.

The mainstream media does cover these issues, despite assertions that they are simply propaganda for "the west".

 

[Matthew Ellard]

My personal opinion is that Ukraine needs to be supplied with enough weapons and military training to be able to fight off the Russian army

Just out of interest, how long do you think it would take to train a foreign language speaking, conscript army, experienced with using soviet "conscript" equipment and fire control systems to start using and integrating USA "professional" army equipment and US fire control systems.

Would that be more than ten years like the Iraqi army?


Germany has had a "little bit of experience" of Russian encirclements on this turf, and I think Germany is being pragmatic. The Ukrainian army is "spent". Ukraine could not police the ethnic Russian areas even if it won the war. There is "no end play scenario" that justifies continuing to fight.

 

[Matthew Ellard]

Putin has no intention of Nuking anyone.

Exactly. This is the silliest conversation ever.

I simply don't know, but the fragmented nature of the Russian Rebels suggests that calling a ceasefire is going to take a bit longer than "one phone call" from Moscow. It may require some "stop or I will hit you myself".

I would also like to know exactly what is going on in the Debaltsevo cauldron. As you know from the Falaise Pocket, now is the time to separate heavy equipment from encircled troops. I imagine, but don't know, that rebels are arguing against Moscow, that only soldiers should be allowed to leave the cauldron and not their heavy equipment. "Minsk II" states that heavy equipment should be withdrawn, so I can imagine infighting. I imagine the Rebels simply want more tanks and heavy weapons for the future.