We are on the same page.
Lets not forget that Trump was discussing pulling the US out of NATO a few years back. IIRC it was driven by some European NATO members not paying their dues !
So European members looked out for their own interests; and diverted money towards their own narrow interests over NATO. If European countries prioritize their own interests, shouldn’t they expect the rest of the world to do the same ?
What kind of ignorant statement is that? British India was literally used as a source of manpower and raw material for the British Empire in its wars.
Blockade would be an act of war.
Now, going after Russian vessels at sea, that might be fair game.
I think it’ll go more like this- once the Ukrainians start getting close to the oblasts that are now “part of Russia”, Putin will issue some sort of thinly veiled threat to nuke Ukraine if they actually cross the border because it’s now an attack on Russia proper, and that’s met with nukes.
At that point, Ukraine can try to get their breakaway provinces back with the threat of being nuked, or they can stop and let Russia have them, and de-escalate.
If he’s smart, Putin would withdraw all Russian forces from parts of Ukraine outside of those oblasts and give them back to the Ukrainians, and basically declare a new status quo as a sort of fait accompli. Sort of a “War’s over, this stuff is Russian. Attack it and we’ll nuke you.” kind of thing.
Looks like a victory of sorts internally within Russia since they basically just ate some of the most industrialized parts of Ukraine, looks kind of like a win for Ukraine in that they’re basically back at the status quo ante bellum since those oblasts were more or less out of their control anyway.
That’s my thought. Show them how easy we could sink a sub. Their navy probably isn’t in any better shape than their army.
Russia doesn’t control all the territory in these four regions even today.
I’m more than aware of the historical trade relationships between the Indian subcontinent and Europe.
My point remains that the world economies are vastly interconnected now, even more so than in the past. And this means that India would feel consequences from a nuclear exchange in Europe. This is not exclusively Europe’s problem.
And I don’t think that is “ignorant”
Let’s not forget Trump was an idiot and was not reflecting anything whatsoever to do with actual US policy. This was burblings from a complete twit.
Yes, Europe (and all countries) should and do prioritize their own interests. My point is that when it comes to nuclear war, the priority for ALL countries is to not have one. Because it will impact EVERY country.
I think several posters may be talking past each other on the topic, so I’m going to sum my understanding to avoid any deep discussions of India’s historical relationship with Europe, which is probably deserving of it’s own thread(s).
First, we have the most (?) likely scenario, say 1-3 tactical nukes used in the territory of the Ukraine. Russia will use the first to stave off any further loses of conquered territory, and likely at least one more to prove they’re serious if Ukraine keeps trying to recover what they’ve lost. But while one or more may be near NATO territory to send a message, none will be direct, although fallout is as always a different issue.
Under this scenario, from India’s POV, it may well still be Ukraine’s problem - horrible, and setting a bad precedent, but still largely localized and not worth upending their own economic and political situation for.
The second scenario, we have a more generalized exchange perhaps as many as a dozen tactical or (G-d forbit) an actual strategic use, while still confined to Ukrainian territory, but with consequences that can not help but spread due to the volume used, with the possibility of at least one striking NATO territory, probably with an “ooops that was an accident, we were targeting the supply depot on the border, our bad, we’ve executed those responsible -wink wink-”. Just barely enough of a fig leaf that Russia might bet that NATO won’t treat it as a direct attack on territory and retaliate in kind.
This is where it will likely get very hard for both sides of the conflict to NOT look at India and China and demand they pick sides. Which they will be hard pressed not to, but still not an absolute given.
The third is a limited nuclear exchange, for values of limited, with escalating tit for tat exchanges across Europe and probably Russia, where both sides steadily scale up the number and size. Something mentioned in other threads where single digits of claimed nuclear arsenals are used, perhaps a few hundred in all but SOMEHOW both sides avoid going further. Extremely unlikely IMHO, and yeah, at that point, no nation is going to be able to avoid the side effects even if we avoid a full on exchange. Absolutely by that point it’s everyone’s problem, and for far more serious reasons that just economic consequences.
But my concern is that IMHO once Scenario One happens, it makes two much more likely, which in turn makes three seem a rational response, which likely ends with M.A.D.
And I see every reason to believe Scenario One isn’t becoming more likely by the day. I still don’t think we’re at the 50/50 mark in the next 8 weeks (if only because I don’t think major territory exchanges will be possible over the winter months), but I wouldn’t give odds on 6-12 months.
Everyone keeps saying things like this, but it makes no sense. If Putin uses a “small” nuke on a “small” target in Ukraine, then arguing about how to prevent a nuclear war is moot, because at that point, we are in a nuclear war. It’s like someone who was just pushed off of a cliff arguing that they shouldn’t jump, because after all, they were only pushed a little bit off the cliff.
Once Putin uses one nuke, any nuke, at that point the option where we obliterate Russia within the hour, terrible though it may be, suddenly becomes the least bad option available. If we don’t respond to an actual nuke by destroying Russia, then we’re not answering the question, we’re just postponing it to the next time that Putin uses a nuke. And then the next one, and the next, because he won’t stop at one unless someone forces him to stop.
It also sets the precedent that if India shrugs about Russia launching nukes at Ukraine, the rest of the world will shrug if Pakistan launches nukes at India.
It is possible that, if China and India get on board, then Russia may stop at one nuke. If they don’t, then we don’t stop till there’s no one left.
I agree, but didn’t want to repeat myself from a few posts back where I said
I do think that @Chronos brings up a good point though, that no matter the outcome, we need to resolve how the world is going to respond going forward to the use of nuclear weapons by the powers, because if there isn’t a unified response, then there are always going to be those who try to do the calculus to figure out if it’s worth it to use them THIS time.
And considering that NK makes Putin look stable most times, it’s a calculation that I want to make sure always ends with “NOPE, not worth it.”
Why would that matter? They’d just demand that the Ukrainian Army withdraw, and anybody resisting would be rebels or something along those lines.
I’m just not convinced that the leaders in the West are willing to risk all out nuclear war over nuclear blackmail against a nation that’s not part of NATO.
As bad as it sounds, I think they’ll collectively sell Ukraine out before we (the West) uses a nuclear weapon against Russia.
But I think Putin knows this, and is willing to threaten it and get those concessions without actually using them.
There is the precedent that when the USA was totally convinced that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction (and was surely going to use the WMD) and went to war with Iraq → only UK, Australia and Poland joined USA. Germany and France actively opposed the USA.
So by your logic, the world should be shrugging off Germany and France today ?
Sorry, but that’s just absurd. International diplomacy is more complex than that. And yes, India has accounted for the scenario of a nuclear war with Pakistan or China with no outside help. I think lots of countries in Asia have accounted for the same.
I agree with the analysis laid out by @ParallelLines and @Chronos and do not want to hijack this thread with India’s role.
If Putin can unilaterally claim to annex part of the Ukraine and call it Russia why can’t NATO let the remaining of Ukraine join? No nukes exchanged, just drive right up to the boarder. Let them built another wall and see how that works for them.
Could the UN take away the Russian veto if nukes are used? Send in a peace keeping force? There are other options to consider.
NATO may have rules for joining, but the United States, by itself, can enter into an alliance with any country it wants, whenever it wants, right?
Yes, it is quite absurd that you would come to that conclusion, and call it my logic.
Can you tell the difference between a claim of having WMD(one that, unlike your assertion, the USA was not totally convinced of), and the actual use of a nuclear weapon?
If not, then I can see how your followed your logic to its absurd conclusion, but I’d think that most would be able to tell the difference.
Pretty much, yes. But without NATO being involved in the conflict, I think the US would have to also negotiate transit for any aircraft and troops. That may be pretty easy to do after Russia goes nutso and starts deploying tactical nukes because it’s bad at invading its weaker neighbors, but it will probably be less swift than a NATO reaction.
But in the end, I do think that saying “Ok, the US, UK, Poland and anyone who’s willing to to assist should help Ukraine remove all Russian forces from its pre-2014 borders by all conventional means.” would be the way to escalate, for the west. I know that is basically daring Russia to escalate to MAD over a small strip of Ukraine they decided to invade, but that’s largely where they’ve driven it.
Yeah, a whole bunch of Buck Turgidson in that last statement, but I do think it would be the least bad option.