Ugh. Thanks? More nightmare fuel. And since Ukraine was a top grain producer, having this little reminder across it will be even worse in some ways. Puck Futin.
There are only so many rail lines into and out of Ukraine and NATO countries, and I’d bet there are railyards not too far into Ukraine from those as well. That’s the sort of thing I’d envision being nuked if they wanted to have an actual war-fighting impact, and not just a terrorist attack sort of effect.
FYI, there’s a subreddit called “ukraineanxiety”. Even if you want to pooh-pooh the posts there as Pollyanna head-in-the-sand, it’s at least a reminder that another reasonable perspective is at least possible.
I hope Putin doesn’t retaliate for the Crimean bridge explosion by launching nukes.
Ever since Ukraine started actually pushing Russia back and winning, I have thought this scenario seemed likely; especially with all the insistence and bombastic rhetoric going on about how Ukraine won’t and shouldn’t accept anything less than the complete withdrawal of Russia from their territory.
It always sounded bad, because insisting on giving Russia a hard, unarguable loss seemed like a way to get to a nuclear war scenario. Much better option would be for Ukraine to push Russia back strongly for a while, then as soon as Russia is willing to, sit down and negotiate. Give up some territory, maybe in exchange for reparations or something, but let Russia call it a ‘win’. That would minimize Ukraine’s losses without backing Russia into a corner where they have to eat a humiliating defeat or use nukes.
You left off a third reason. The guys who don’t actually have the capability of using the nukes therefore don’t have to face any of the consequences, either. It’s safe for them to say it, and it makes them look like tough guys (or at least, they think it makes them look like tough guys).
The problem with this approach is that it means that, a few years later, we go through this whole song and dance again. Maybe not in Ukraine, if we finally get off our butts and admit Ukraine to NATO, but somewhere. And every time this happens anywhere, we risk nuclear war again. The lowest risk, long-term, is if we make it very clear to Russia that wars of conquest simply don’t pay off, at all, so they stop bringing the world to the brink of annihilation.
Well, my point of view is unpopular as far as I can determine, but it’s my opinion that ‘we’, and by that I mean not just the US but the ‘west’ in general, shouldn’t be jumping into wars unless there’s an established treaty to do so.
Ukraine is an awkward case in that I understand there were some non-binding agreements made to keep them secure in exchange for them giving up the old Soviet nukes. In retrospect it certainly seems like it was a mistake on Ukraine’s part to give those up without an actual treaty obligating their defense, but I still feel like there’s some responsibility there due to those promises, so I think the provision of materiel aid has been a good compromise there to live up to that promise to a reasonable degree, given the situation.
But any other country that has no current treaties obligating other nations to come to their defense, well…you get invaded and you don’t have actual declared allies, that’s unfortunate but not our problem, and my opinion is that remaining entirely neutral is the proper course of action. There would thus be no threat of escalation as long as an actual ally isn’t attacked.
We haven’t jumped into this war. All we’ve done is supply Ukraine with weapons so they can fight for themselves. Similarly, any decision to give up territory would only be Ukraine’s decision to make. So far, they don’t seem willing to even concede Crimea. I personally applaud that stance, but my opinion has little bearing on the decisions of the Ukrainian leadership.
And the thing is, even fighting mostly on their own… Ukraine is winning. If Russia tries this again, maybe whatever other country they decide to annex part of manages to kick them back out of the newly-annexed territory, and Putin declares that now that the territory they’ve “annexed” is part of Russia, this is an unprovoked attack on Russian soil, and so decides that now it’s the appropriate time to go nuclear. This is a risk every time that a nuclear world power decides to get aggressive, regardless of whom they’re getting aggressive against.
For that sort of speculation, the following thread is probably a better fit -
In which I postulated a please-no-one-settlement in which Russia returns to pre-2022 borders and eventually the Crimea goes through a UN managed referendum on it’s future after several years. Something that all parties would be unhappy with but MIGHT be willing to accept.
The problem with it, and the focus of this thread is that Putin seems to have tied himself too tightly to this War (whatever HE chooses to call it) to allow any major territory losses, especially after the new annexations. And since he can’t (at this rate) keep it with conventional military force, nuclear options may be his only opportunity.
The other problem with your argument is that it also points back to this thread - all nations will have to accept that the only way to avoid losing loss of territory is to have A) their own nukes or B) be in an alliance of nations that implicitly or explicitly threaten the use of nukes in the event of conflict.
Which brings us right back to the increased probability of an ever escalating nuclear race and use of nukes in border disputes.
if your neighbor’s house is on fire (with a certain chance the fire spilling over to your house) … would you NOT act, because - hey - we do not have any signed contracts or so ?
I’d say the reverse should be true: CAREFUL with signing treaties - as then you are legally bound and might have to weasel your way out of one … but if the geopolitical situation calls for it you (US, the committed West) can step in any time - and if the case is such that there is a clear agression from one side AND the reaction is pretty transversal … why not …
… better to stop a snoball than cleaning up after an avalange
Would it be so wrong to gift Ukraine 5 (no, let’s make it 10–Hey, how about 25? Quiet in there!) tactical nukes with associated delivery systems with a range of 900 kilometers? You know, in appreciation of their giving up nukes all those many years ago.
What could Vlad do? At this point, it seems the only goal left him is to prove little vlad is more than 5 cm in length. Perhaps he will pick up his toys and go home.
This is classic Elon Musk logic.
While I appreciate the sentiment, and assume it’s tongue in cheek, we really don’t want to set the example of giving nuclear weapons to our allies on the borders of unfriendly nations, lest they do the same.
I think there’s some merit to @Mnemnosyne 's point, here: The key thing is that responses need to be predictable. Nobody would ever undertake actions that would lead to nuclear annihilation, if they knew they’d lead to that. And in particular, Russia wouldn’t have invaded Ukraine if they knew that they’d get their butts kicked (in part due to aid from the rest of the West). And one way to remove the uncertainty is to sign formal defense treaties.
But the flip side to “we should have a formal defense treaty before we get involved” is that we should have formal defense treaties, wherever needed, because the strong conquering the weak just because they can is a lousy way to run a planet. In other words, we should have helped out Ukraine, but we should also have formally told the world beforehand that we would help them out.
There are, of course, some nuances to this in specific cases. With Taiwan, for instance, China has decided that it’s important to save face, and that the US signing formal treaties with Taiwan would be a loss of face, and that that would result in retaliation. So there, we have to make it clear to China that we’d defend Taiwan, but do it in a way that lets China pretend (in public, at least) that we’re not making it clear. How to do that… Well, let’s just say I’m glad I’m not a diplomat working in Taiwan.
But I don’t think that dynamic is in play with Russia, and I don’t see any reason why we shouldn’t formally invite all of Russia’s neighbors to NATO.
With who and with what?
Yep, this is exactly it: predictability. It should be known and effectively certain what the response will be. I strongly suspect that Russia did not think that Ukraine was going to get the support they have gotten. Why? Because there is inconsistency. There is uncertainty. There is posturing and bluffing and sometimes when a country goes ‘we will take action if X happens’ they don’t really follow through, while other times they DO, and that makes things messy.
Had they known so much materiel was going to be sent to Ukraine, they may have made different choices in what to do; perhaps no war would have occurred. That’s why I think everything should be formally spelled out, because when it’s not, things are messy and uncertain.
Sorry if I wasn’t clear - I don’t want, as a response to the US/NATO giving tactical nukes to Ukraine, Russia to go ahead and give tactical nukes to, as a not so random example, Syria. Or, closer to home, to any number of Central/South American Trump emulators, who would use them to ensure their position as President-for-Life in exchange for other considerations.
But, and I could be wrong, I don’t think @GWF_Hefel was intending it as a serious possibility, no matter how much it might entertain as a leveling of the field. I’ll wait for them to confirm however.
You know, I was joking when I first suggested giving nukes to Ukraine. Now, I’m not so sure.
If Putin nukes something, he knows the west is not going to retaliate in kind. And he may be willing to gamble on twisted panties in the west resulting in almost no retaliation. But Ukraine will get the message. And he will probably nuke somewhere in the annexed lands so he will have the figleaf of saying, “Hey, I’m just nuking my own land in defence!” This makes it easier for those in the west to give in to their cowardice. And every other country that has nukes or might quickly get them will see new opportunities in the strategic use of nukes.
But if we give Ukraine some nukes, I am pretty sure Vlad will know what will happen if he nukes any part of Ukraine–annexed or not.
Or, we could pull a Heinlein and give all our nukes to the UN–as long as they pinky-swear to nuke until they glow any country that uses nukes.
The biggest obstacle to this plan would be all the Americans complaining, “But they’re ours!” Nukes are the most useless weapon in the world if you’re not the only one with them. (I, personally, believe the claymore to be #1.) I can think of better things to with the billions wasted every year. The problem of nukes has been kicked down the road for decades. Time’s up almost.
This would be the UN where Russia, among other countries, holds a permanent veto power over everything?