Russia's War Against Ukraine

[Gusington]

^I'm not following the logic of "if Russia nukes any part of the Ukraine and NATO, without any treaty or mandate to do so, responds by nuking Russia it will be NATO that starts a nuclear war, not Russia"

[Yskonyn]

I am also rather surprised by von der Leyen's statement that Ukraïne is welcome to join the EU as a member state. As far as I know it was always held off, not in the last place because of corruption claims and a skewed political environment.
I am very interested in the reason why she stated what she did.

The point ComradeP makes about weapon deliveries has been on my mind these last few days as well. If you look at it from the other side of the table its easy to claim the West is indirectly, but actively aggressing against Russia.

Not that I am not happy to see the unified reaction of the West and the 'old alliances' (as JH puts it aptly) being intact, I do worry about the order in which this happens.

[ComradeP]

^I'm not following the logic of "if Russia nukes any part of the Ukraine and NATO, without any treaty or mandate to do so, responds by nuking Russia it will be NATO that starts a nuclear war, not Russia"

As far as we know, Ukraine has been disarmed in terms of nuclear weapons in return for various security agreements in the 1990's. It can't respond through nuclear means.

Ukraine is not a NATO member. No Article 5 can be applied.

If Russia would uses a nuclear weapon in the Ukraine, and that act would cause NATO to reply through a nuclear strike of its own, it is essentially unprovoked: NATO is not under attack. It would be a first strike.

NATO in Europe is primarily a defensive alliance, though I'm not sure what the status of the no first strike policy is.

[MikeGER]

That's why I'm a little surprised that, on the government level in a number of EU countries, decisions are made to send weapons to the Ukraine (in some cases from their own arsenal).

well,  every tank blown up north of Kiev by Ukrainians we dont have to blow up ourself east of Warsaw ,or heaven forbit east of Amsterdam, one day.
in the meantime it developed into a classic placeholder / proxy war between the West and Russia.

also it buys Nato time to bolster the east front states now and to produce and replenish the arsenal       

[Gusington]

^I know all this. What is boggling my mind is that in the above situation, Russia uses a nuclear weapon in a war of aggression on Ukraine, and as a response, NATO responds with a nuclear strike being labeled as 'unprovoked.'

[ComradeP]

Because NATO is not under attack.

NATO and the Warsaw Pact are/were not meant to be the world's nuclear peacekeepers. As the world was quickly divided into spheres of influence, it was difficult not to step on the toes of a member state of either organization in some way during the Cold War, but that doesn't mean a nuclear response to a strike in a non-member state is something any member state should reply to with its own nuclear strike.

In terms of ties to NATO, being an aspiring member gets you no credit. You're either in, or your not, and when you're not, NATO's nuclear umbrella doesn't cover you.

[MengJiao]

Now, of course we don't need Putin's support to do anything, but usually these things go by means of a treaty, mandate or some form of obligation to do so.

  I think the motive (if not the treaty obligation) is self-defense and the logic of pouring weapons into the Ukraine is pretty simple: there was no threat at all to Russia from Ukraine therefore all
bets are off and Russia has no grounds whatsoever to object to anyone's arming Ukraine.  Note that the weapons are being provided by individual countries, not NATO.  The EU is not NATO.
So to reiterate, one basic rule of sovereignty is that any nation whatsoever has the obligation to defend itself.  An unprovoked attack on a nearby nation with no
justifcation or declaration of war strongly implies that all sovereign states must apply the basic rule of self-defense and arm the attacked nation so as to protect themselves.
Here Putin's threats against the world in general have backfired from day one since any nation on the planet can claim self-defense against a nuclear threat to the planet.

  Of course things can get extreme pretty fast (eg. Turkey's international agreement about closing the straits in wartime to ALL belligerent powers) when unprovoked actions start triggering
other treaty obligations.

[Jarhead0331]

^I know all this. What is boggling my mind is that in the above situation, Russia uses a nuclear weapon in a war of aggression on Ukraine, and as a response, NATO responds with a nuclear strike being labeled as 'unprovoked.'

Posting this here for a discussion on the Budapest Memorandum and the nature of US/UK obligations to Ukraine based upon the "security assurances" provided as consideration for Ukraine to sign the nuclear non-proliferation treaty.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Budapest_Memorandum_on_Security_Assurances

[Jarhead0331]

  I think the motive (if not the treaty obligation) is self-defense and the logic of pouring weapons into the Ukraine is pretty simple: there was no threat at all to Russia from Ukraine therefore all
bets are off and Russia has no grounds whatsoever to object to anyone's arming Ukraine.

This point is arguable and it is something that is not really being addressed in the mainstream media, or at least most of it. Ukraine's alignment with the west and NATO is a clear strategic threat to Russia, beyond any shadow of a doubt. I am not saying that this justifies the invasion, but there is at least some strategic rationale from the Russian perspective to annex and/or replace the government in Ukraine that needs to be taken into account when measuring a response. Nothing is so black and white, it is complex and gray.

[MengJiao]

Because NATO is not under attack.

NATO and the Warsaw Pact are/were not meant to be the world's nuclear peacekeepers. As the world was quickly divided into spheres of influence, it was difficult not to step on the toes of a member state of either organization in some way during the Cold War, but that doesn't mean a nuclear response to a strike in a non-member state is something any member state should reply to with its own nuclear strike.

In terms of ties to NATO, being an aspiring member gets you no credit. You're either in, or your not, and when you're not, NATO's nuclear umbrella doesn't cover you.

  It doesn't matter whose umbrella is covering who.  An implied threat to blow up the world obligates all nations to defend themselves against that threat.  For example, China, India and Pakistan and North Korea might want to consider preparing their nukes to hit Russia if the Russians claim they are going to start shooting nukes since self-defense strongly implies preserving the planet as a livable one.

[MengJiao]

there is at least some strategic rationale from the Russian perspective to annex and/or replace the government in Ukraine that needs to be taken into account when measuring a response. Nothing is so black and white, it is complex and gray.

  By a similar rationale, everybody should arm Ukraine like crazy and perhaps with more justification since the Russians have actually attacked which kind of clarifies the situation in terms of the self-defense of
other nations: to wit: let them fight it out in Ukraine and not elsewhere.

[Jarhead0331]

I don't feel safe in this world no more
I don't want die in a nuclear war
I want to sail away to a distant shore, and
live like an ape man

[ComradeP]

An implied threat to blow up the world obligates all nations to defend themselves against that threat.

Nuclear deterrence means every day there's an implied threat to blow up the world, that doesn't take an active ground war.

The war in the Ukraine changes very little to that point, also because Ukraine is not a nuclear power and can't fire nuclear weapons in self-defence.

Note that the weapons are being provided by individual countries, not NATO.  The EU is not NATO.

But many of those states are NATO member states, which I mentioned. I didn't say that either the EU as a whole or NATO were delivering weapons.

Look at this from the Russian perspective: Putin has a feeling that the Western world is against him and Western virtues, democracy and ways of life are closing in on him.

When he starts a war with Ukraine, various NATO members start delivering arms to the Ukraine. That they do so as governments of independent countries doesn't change the fact they're also NATO members.

It's important to note that many of those governments, including the Dutch government, were highly reluctant to deliver arms after 2014. In both cases the Ukraine was under attack, though obviously the scale is greater this time. In the former case, most of Europe and NATO just watched.

A country like Sweden, known for neutrality during conflicts in Europe, starts delivering arms. The last time they did so, the Soviet Union attacked its neighbour. Now, Russia attacks a country on the other side of Europe without any direct threat to Sweden.

The government of Finland, a neutral buffer state between the Warsaw Pact and NATO, suddenly states that maybe they'll be joining NATO after all. Talk about throwing fuel on the fire when one of the reasons Putin went to war is to stop eastwards expansion of the alliance.

Switzerland, another neutral state, suddenly decides to go along with EU sanctions even though its obligations to do so are limited. For Swiss banks, their connection to the EU banking system would've meant they needed to oblige in some way, but there was no need for the Swiss government as a whole to go along with EU sanctions.

I don't think some of these decisions are very rational, and they seem to be made mostly after public outrage.   

[Gusington]

I've been doing some reading on what you posted above, JH, here: Firebird - A Memoir: The Elusive Fate of Russian Democracy by Andrei Kozyrev. It covers all the treaties from the beginning of the 1990s and the newly emergent former Soviet republics.

And like you say it is a very gray area, to say the least.

I understand Ukraine is not a member state but once a war like this starts every state even remotely involved has to be as disciplined as possible, when dealing with the frightening unknown of one nuclear capable insane person.

I also understand that Putin feels surrounded by NATO and the west, but actively going to war to stop encroachment is a failed policy at best, and throwing fuel on the fire like ComradeP says above, at worst.

[ComradeP]

Regarding the Budapest Memorandum: it was not acted upon in 2014.

Biden was Vice-President at the time and though Johnson was still Mayor of London, the Conservatives under David Cameron were in charge. If either the US government or the UK government starts waving the memorandum around now, they would face difficult questions from both the opposition and from within their own parties having to explain why they didn't act in 2014 and later on when Ukraine's territorial integrity was violated.