Russia kills nuclear non-proliferation!!!!!

[angrysoba]

No, I fully agree that the Bucharest decleration was the best for all concerned. The issue is that Russia violated it so completely as to render it null and void.



Different situation entirely. Ukraine clearly has no capacity to defy Russia now, which certainly wasn't the case with the Falklands. I'm also certain that Putin wouldn't dare to invade Ukraine, if it had the capacity to essentially destroy Russia. He can return them the destruction in kind, but what has he achieved? Nothing good.



No, Russia can hold Crimea fine. Even if they have to truck water in, and suffer from chronic blackouts. Crimean economy will collapse for a few years now, that's a given, especiallly if there is a terror campaign by disgruntled Tatars and Ukrainians and others. Extra blackouts and water shortages can make the whole thing notably worse though.

However, it will be a phyrric victory for Russia, regardless of what Ukraine does. They will have to hold a substantial garrison there, to prevent Ukrainian attempts to retake it, plus to discourage rebels. They will have to pour in very substantial resources to keep it financially afloat and to build new infrastructure. They will also get very little income from there for the forseeable future. It won't bankrupt Russia, but it won't benefit it either.

One thing they could do is keep water and power flowing for a few years, until Russia builds some infrastructure to attract tourists, and cut it just as the investment was becoming profitable, making the pain last longer. Reform to be independant from Russia in the meantime.

McHrozni

Well then, we are probably agreed that Putin has gone and bought himself a lemon. I certainly don't hope for terrorism conducted there and I think that it is unlikely anyway. But as for Russia having to keep a substantial garrison there, I thought that was what Russia wanted Crimea for in the first place; somewhere to park their Black Sea Fleet.

But in the meantime, Ukraine is going to have to pull its socks up and sweep away some of the corruption if it wants to build some powerful economy whose energy needs can be supplied independent of Russia. Sounds unlikely in the short term, although I am no expert on these things.

 

[McHrozni]

Well then, we are probably agreed that Putin has gone and bought himself a lemon. I certainly don't hope for terrorism conducted there and I think that it is unlikely anyway. But as for Russia having to keep a substantial garrison there, I thought that was what Russia wanted Crimea for in the first place; somewhere to park their Black Sea Fleet.

Russia already had that, it wasn't an issue. But then they had to service the fleet and nothing more, now they have to be prepared to defend the port from an invading army as well. Putin will have to keep at least another couple dozen thousand men ready in Crimea at all times for the forseeable future, to discourage Ukraine from trying to take it back (and Pearl Harboring the Black sea fleet as the opening move).

It's a particularly sour, rotting lemon.

But in the meantime, Ukraine is going to have to pull its socks up and sweep away some of the corruption if it wants to build some powerful economy whose energy needs can be supplied independent of Russia. Sounds unlikely in the short term, although I am no expert on these things.

There are few things better than an acute crisis to get such things done. If Ukraine does most things right for two years now, they'll be the new Poland within a decade.

McHrozni

 

[angrysoba]

Russia already had that, it wasn't an issue. But then they had to service the fleet and nothing more, now they have to be prepared to defend the port from an invading army as well. Putin will have to keep at least another couple dozen thousand men ready in Crimea at all times for the forseeable future, to discourage Ukraine from trying to take it back (and Pearl Harboring the Black sea fleet as the opening move).

Are you serious?

Let me see if I follow you. You are saying Putin would not have dared invade a Crimea that's part of a nuclear-armed Ukraine (something I suggested was not necessarily true as Argentina and the Falklands example showed, countries do attack nuclear powers sometimes - although I think you missed the point of my example), however, you also think that Russia is going to be on alert for the "foreseeable future" in case Ukraine's meagrely equipped military is going to attack a nuclear superpower and expect to win by sinking the Black Sea Fleet?

That's absurd. Russia's military, particularly its air force would kick the crap out of the Ukrainian military. It would embargo all fuel imports, the Ukrainian nuclear reactors would have to go on without any Russian assistance, and of course loyalty among Russian Ukrainians could not be guaranteed. At best Ukrainians would probably only become more prejudicial against ethnic Russians, and the place would be likely to descend into civil war. It would probably be the best way to get Russia to carve out more territory from Ukraine.

Of course, this is just speculation, but so is your Pearl Harbor fantasy (and yours forgets the fact that the far more evenly matched perpetrators of Pearl Harbor I ended in disaster for the attackers).

It's a particularly sour, rotting lemon.



There are few things better than an acute crisis to get such things done. If Ukraine does most things right for two years now, they'll be the new Poland within a decade.

McHrozni

The new Poland? I expect the top military brass in Russia is quaking at that thought. On the other hand, maybe it is the other way around if reports of Polish reservists being called up are true. Many of them work outside of Poland for some reason. The economy has clearly improved a lot, and if Ukraine can get in on the EU action then great for them, but I am having trouble believing they will become a military power that can take on Russia.

 

[McHrozni]

Are you serious?

Let me see if I follow you. You are saying Putin would not have dared invade a Crimea that's part of a nuclear-armed Ukraine (something I suggested was not necessarily true as Argentina and the Falklands example showed, countries do attack nuclear powers sometimes

Yes. I feel quite comfortable claiming Crimea is sufficiently more important to Ukraine than Falklands islands are to UK to make the example unworkable. Doubly so back in 1980.

however, you also think that Russia is going to be on alert for the "foreseeable future" in case Ukraine's meagrely equipped military is going to attack a nuclear superpower and expect to win by sinking the Black Sea Fleet?

Yep. Similar reason. Even if Russia went nuclear on Ukraine, what exactly would they accomplish? Revenge? That wouldn't rise their fleet back, plus they would have to deal with a whole range of consequences.

That's absurd. Russia's military, particularly its air force would kick the crap out of the Ukrainian military. It would embargo all fuel imports, the Ukrainian nuclear reactors would have to go on without any Russian assistance, and of course loyalty among Russian Ukrainians could not be guaranteed. At best Ukrainians would probably only become more prejudicial against ethnic Russians, and the place would be likely to descend into civil war. It would probably be the best way to get Russia to carve out more territory from Ukraine.

Perhaps that is the situation now. All of this can change in ten years. Five with good fortune.

Of course, this is just speculation, but so is your Pearl Harbor fantasy (and yours forgets the fact that the far more evenly matched perpetrators of Pearl Harbor I ended in disaster for the attackers).

Yup, it did, and it was foreseeable. Pearl Harbor was still well defended, which is the point I was making. Such attack would be futile because great precautions will be taken, and because Russia would be ready to retalliate. Said expenses have to be added to the cost of having Crimea.

The new Poland? I expect the top military brass in Russia is quaking at that thought. On the other hand, maybe it is the other way around if reports of Polish reservists being called up are true. Many of them work outside of Poland for some reason. The economy has clearly improved a lot, and if Ukraine can get in on the EU action then great for them, but I am having trouble believing they will become a military power that can take on Russia.

Take on Russia militarily and hope to prevail? Heavens no. Big and strong enough to warrant major preparations? Certainly.

McHrozni

 

[angrysoba]

Yes. I feel quite comfortable claiming Crimea is sufficiently more important to Ukraine than Falklands islands are to UK to make the example unworkable. Doubly so back in 1980.



Yep. Similar reason. Even if Russia went nuclear on Ukraine, what exactly would they accomplish? Revenge? That wouldn't rise their fleet back, plus they would have to deal with a whole range of consequences.



Perhaps that is the situation now. All of this can change in ten years. Five with good fortune.



Yup, it did, and it was foreseeable. Pearl Harbor was still well defended, which is the point I was making. Such attack would be futile because great precautions will be taken, and because Russia would be ready to retalliate. Said expenses have to be added to the cost of having Crimea.



Take on Russia militarily and hope to prevail? Heavens no. Big and strong enough to warrant major preparations? Certainly.

McHrozni

In other words, everyone knows the Ukrainians would be mad to act as McHrozni's pointy stick to poke the Russian bear's soft "underbelly" (in fact, doesn't that metaphor also refer to a failed military strategy?) and unless there is any more evidence than fantasy it can be dismissed as fantasy.

Anyway, are you going to put any figures on these "great precautions", "major preparations" or are you just going to invent scenarios in which Russia does not already have enough military in the area to prevent a Ukrainian strike from being successful?

Because the Russians are now putting figures on the price of gas subsidies they gave for their presence in Sevastopol.

http://www.themoscowtimes.com/news/...lack-sea-fleet-deals-with-ukraine/497050.html

 

[McHrozni]

In other words, everyone knows the Ukrainians would be mad to act as McHrozni's pointy stick to poke the Russian bear's soft "underbelly" (in fact, doesn't that metaphor also refer to a failed military strategy?) and unless there is any more evidence than fantasy it can be dismissed as fantasy.

Anyway, are you going to put any figures on these "great precautions", "major preparations" or are you just going to invent scenarios in which Russia does not already have enough military in the area to prevent a Ukrainian strike from being successful?

All I'm saying is that if Ukraine finally turns away from Russia, the cost for Russia to maintain security will increase. Not because Ukraine will be about to invade Russia, but because there is a possibility for that to happen, Ukraine certainly has all the justification it needs on a plate for the next fifty years. Russia will need to ensure such an attack would be futile, which will incur substantial costs - above and beyond all that Crimea could offer. This is not something that comes without costs, far from it.

This is no fantasy, it's fact. Ukraine stands no chance against Russia because Russia spends so much more on military. Now Russia will need to deploy a larger portion of it's army - likely the current numbers of 40-80 thousand men - permanently alongside Ukrainian borders.

Because the Russians are now putting figures on the price of gas subsidies they gave for their presence in Sevastopol.

http://www.themoscowtimes.com/news/...lack-sea-fleet-deals-with-ukraine/497050.html

It's not nearly as simple. If Russia were to stop giving the discount to Ukraine, gas consumption in Ukraine will decrease, and Ukraine will seek other sources of heat. As someone else said in another thread, all Russia is doing is ensuring their best (potential or existant) customers are simply not there anymore. Such losses need to be added to the costs as well.

Back of the envelope calculation: 80,000 men (what they deployed now), which is 1/10th of their army, and an equal amount of air force as well. That runs to ~5 billion dollars per year (they spend 100 billion on the entire armed forces, the number is not way off). The gas subsides amount to 3.6 billion USD. Not an accurate calculation by any means, but enough to show significant savings can not be expected.

I seriously doubt Russia will be able to save money in this way, even if you exclude political costs and capital flight.

McHrozni

 

[angrysoba]

All I'm saying is that if Ukraine finally turns away from Russia, the cost for Russia to maintain security will increase. Not because Ukraine will be about to invade Russia, but because there is a possibility for that to happen, Ukraine certainly has all the justification it needs on a plate for the next fifty years. Russia will need to ensure such an attack would be futile, which will incur substantial costs - above and beyond all that Crimea could offer. This is not something that comes without costs, far from it.

Perhaps Russia could arm themselves with some atomic bombs. That would make an attack on them pretty futile.

This is no fantasy, it's fact. Ukraine stands no chance against Russia because Russia spends so much more on military. Now Russia will need to deploy a larger portion of it's army - likely the current numbers of 40-80 thousand men - permanently alongside Ukrainian borders.



It's not nearly as simple. If Russia were to stop giving the discount to Ukraine, gas consumption in Ukraine will decrease, and Ukraine will seek other sources of heat. As someone else said in another thread, all Russia is doing is ensuring their best (potential or existant) customers are simply not there anymore. Such losses need to be added to the costs as well.

Back of the envelope calculation: 80,000 men (what they deployed now), which is 1/10th of their army, and an equal amount of air force as well. That runs to ~5 billion dollars per year (they spend 100 billion on the entire armed forces, the number is not way off). The gas subsides amount to 3.6 billion USD. Not an accurate calculation by any means, but enough to show significant savings can not be expected.

I seriously doubt Russia will be able to save money in this way, even if you exclude political costs and capital flight.

McHrozni

I expect Russia will choose a couple of different options, which are:

1.) sell their gas to other customers (China, India etc...)

2.) renegotiate gas contracts with Ukraine and the EU and have their customers accept/put up with the annexation of Crimea.

 

[McHrozni]

Perhaps Russia could arm themselves with some atomic bombs. That would make an attack on them pretty futile.

Yeah, if the world was this simple. But nukes are inherently a poor weapon for such concerns. What would he do, nuke innocents and get wrath of the world (incl. possibly nukes), or nuke Ukrainian forces in Crimea and destroy his precious bases alongside?

You need to appreciate it's a strongly assymetric situation. Ukraine could use nukes to much greater effect than Russia.

I expect Russia will choose a couple of different options, which are:

1.) sell their gas to other customers (China, India etc...)

2.) renegotiate gas contracts with Ukraine and the EU and have their customers accept/put up with the annexation of Crimea.

Yes yes, and all of those are less favorable than their present situation, meaning less net profit. There is no way around it.

Those 3.6 billion dollar discount a year was peanuts compared to very real losses their budget will suffer. Not to mention the economy as a whole, that'll be the real loss.

McHrozni

 

[angrysoba]

Yeah, if the world was this simple. But nukes are inherently a poor weapon for such concerns. What would he do, nuke innocents and get wrath of the world (incl. possibly nukes), or nuke Ukrainian forces in Crimea and destroy his precious bases alongside?

You need to appreciate it's a strongly assymetric situation.

It certainly is.

Ukraine could use nukes to much greater effect than Russia.

No they couldn't, because they don't have them, whereas Russia do. I know that that's looking at the world in simple terms, but sometimes the world really is that simple.

Yes yes, and all of those are less favorable than their present situation, meaning less net profit. There is no way around it.

Those 3.6 billion dollar discount a year was peanuts compared to very real losses their budget will suffer. Not to mention the economy as a whole, that'll be the real loss.

McHrozni

It will be interesting to see what happens next, of course.

 

[McHrozni]

No they couldn't, because they don't have them, whereas Russia do. I know that that's looking at the world in simple terms, but sometimes the world really is that simple.

In a hypothetical scenario where Ukraine would have nukes, they would have a much greater value to Ukraine than Russian nukes have value to Russian situation in either event.

It will be interesting to see what happens next, of course.

Nothing much, Russia won't go bankrupt, but I suspect even the most ardent nationalists in Crimea will have second thoughts this time next year. Most people perfer not going hungry and living in a highly accepting foreign state to going hungry in their nation-state. Because that's what's in store for them, no less.

McHrozni