There is this problem that giving up whenever someone threatens to use nukes, gives them an incentive to threaten to use nukes more often.
Like, yesterday it was “obviously the nukes would fly if someone attacked Russia”, today it is “but maybe nukes will also fly if someone keeps supporting Ukraine defending itself from Russian attack”, now feel free to extrapolate for tomorrow...
EDIT:
Problem is, this is an iterated conflict. I suppose no one here believes that a deal like “okay, Russia may take the whole Ukraine now, but then promises to not invade another country for at least 20 years” is actually on the table. (For the same reason it wasn’t with Germany in 1938.)
Yes, if the outcome is “the nukes actually start flying”, then we may all die. That would be very bad. But at the same time, if the outcome is “Putin mentions nukes, everyone gives up, Putin takes whatever he wants”, then it is trivial to predict what Putin will say during his next invasion.
I agree, although as an American I note that Russia’s conventional army is far to weak to take countries of strategic significance to the United States. Sometimes the best solution is to give in to the blackmail, especially if the blackmailer has put himself in a position where it will likely be in his interest to carry out his threat if you do not give in.
Hypothetically, is there a chance to give in now, without making it a precedent? I think history shows that agreements with Russia are not worth the paper they are written on.
If you look at the Wikipedia page (and Wikipedia pages are generally written to support the Western elite perspective) for the agreement, the US broke the agreement first in 2013 before Russia violated it.
Certainly, this example shows that agreements with Russia that the US violates are not binding to Russian decision-makers.
USA screwed up by acting legibly. (I don’t buy the story that Belarus spontaneously became a pro-Russian dictatorship with zero intervention from Russia.)
Where did you hear that Belarus got spontaneously pro-Russian?
There’s no claim that there’s zero intervention anywhere and the agreement does not call for zero intervention. I would expect that there is not a single state that has zero intervention from the United States.
The agreement does forbid using military force and also economic sanctions against Belarus, Ukraine and Kazakhstan and the US violated it by imposing economic sanctions against Belarus.
Within a few months from that point, this then increased Russian demands on Ukraine not signing the European Union–Ukraine Association Agreement and the Ukrainian leader ruling out signing the agreement. Then partly with Western support, there were protests that toppled his government. The new government was then not recognized by Russia and Russia felt the need to intervene militarily.
That isn’t to say, that Russia’s actions are good. They are however far unprovoked or happen in an environment where Russia fails to honor agreements when other parties honor them.
Germany in 1938 had the economic and military strength that it would have won a war against all the other European powers if it hadn’t attacked Russia and the US wouldn’t get involved.
Both the economic and military strength of Russia are quite different.
There is this problem that giving up whenever someone threatens to use nukes, gives them an incentive to threaten to use nukes more often.
Like, yesterday it was “obviously the nukes would fly if someone attacked Russia”, today it is “but maybe nukes will also fly if someone keeps supporting Ukraine defending itself from Russian attack”, now feel free to extrapolate for tomorrow...
EDIT:
Problem is, this is an iterated conflict. I suppose no one here believes that a deal like “okay, Russia may take the whole Ukraine now, but then promises to not invade another country for at least 20 years” is actually on the table. (For the same reason it wasn’t with Germany in 1938.)
Yes, if the outcome is “the nukes actually start flying”, then we may all die. That would be very bad. But at the same time, if the outcome is “Putin mentions nukes, everyone gives up, Putin takes whatever he wants”, then it is trivial to predict what Putin will say during his next invasion.
I agree, although as an American I note that Russia’s conventional army is far to weak to take countries of strategic significance to the United States. Sometimes the best solution is to give in to the blackmail, especially if the blackmailer has put himself in a position where it will likely be in his interest to carry out his threat if you do not give in.
Hypothetically, is there a chance to give in now, without making it a precedent? I think history shows that agreements with Russia are not worth the paper they are written on.
If you look at the Wikipedia page (and Wikipedia pages are generally written to support the Western elite perspective) for the agreement, the US broke the agreement first in 2013 before Russia violated it.
Certainly, this example shows that agreements with Russia that the US violates are not binding to Russian decision-makers.
USA screwed up by acting legibly. (I don’t buy the story that Belarus spontaneously became a pro-Russian dictatorship with zero intervention from Russia.)
Where did you hear that Belarus got spontaneously pro-Russian?
There’s no claim that there’s zero intervention anywhere and the agreement does not call for zero intervention. I would expect that there is not a single state that has zero intervention from the United States.
The agreement does forbid using military force and also economic sanctions against Belarus, Ukraine and Kazakhstan and the US violated it by imposing economic sanctions against Belarus.
Within a few months from that point, this then increased Russian demands on Ukraine not signing the European Union–Ukraine Association Agreement and the Ukrainian leader ruling out signing the agreement. Then partly with Western support, there were protests that toppled his government. The new government was then not recognized by Russia and Russia felt the need to intervene militarily.
That isn’t to say, that Russia’s actions are good. They are however far unprovoked or happen in an environment where Russia fails to honor agreements when other parties honor them.
Germany in 1938 had the economic and military strength that it would have won a war against all the other European powers if it hadn’t attacked Russia and the US wouldn’t get involved.
Both the economic and military strength of Russia are quite different.
This sounds like a very important factor indeed.