NATO military chief says troops would be on ground if not for Russian nukes
NATO military chief says troops would be on ground if not for Russian nukes
"If you fight in Afghanistan, that's not the same as fighting the Russians in Ukraine," Admiral Rob Bauer said on Sunday.
Summary
NATO’s Military Committee head, Admiral Rob Bauer, stated that NATO troops would likely be in Ukraine countering Russian forces if Russia lacked nuclear weapons.
Speaking at the IISS Prague Defence Summit, Bauer emphasized that Russia’s nuclear arsenal deters direct NATO involvement, contrasting Ukraine’s situation with past NATO interventions in non-nuclear states like Afghanistan.
Although NATO nations provide military aid to Ukraine, direct troop deployment has been avoided, with leaders like U.S. President Biden ruling it out due to nuclear escalation risks highlighted by Russian threats and rhetoric.
Fuck it. If nukes are an excuse to prevent all conventional intervention, then nukes are a free pass to commit any crimes one wishes against non-nuclear powers. Put boots on the ground, or accept nuclear proliferation as a fact of life once countries realize that Ukraine proves that giving up nukes does not result in international support for sovereignty against revanchist states.
If nukes are an excuse to prevent all conventional intervention, then nukes are a free pass to commit any crimes one wishes against non-nuclear powers.
Well... yeah.
The only thing that surprises me in geopolitics right now is that Iran is not mass producing nukes yet.
It's a delicate process, not easy to simply produce a bunch of nuclear weapons. Iran is at the point where they could have a few inside of a year anytime they actually want to trigger that particular international crisis.
They've been clear that they don't do it because they don't think they'd make Iran more secure.
If nukes are an excuse to prevent all conventional intervention, then nukes are a free pass to commit any crimes one wishes against non-nuclear powers
That is the assumption Russia is operating under.
Yeah this is such a losing strategy. All it does is authorize crimes in the short term and drive up nuclear proliferation in the long term.
Of course, the alternative is a game of chicken with nuclear powers to test the doctrine of mutually assured destruction.
Still, better to do that now than years from now with the smaller, more radical parties who will by then control nukes, thanks to the nuclear proliferation the current strategy drives.
It’s nice to see this war proving that nuclear disarmament is unwise both for peaceful nations wishing to maintain stable borders and for aggressor nations seeking to invade the neighbors who gave up their nukes.
Like, given Ukrainian history it’s kinda shocking they gave them up, even with all the assurances they were given.
They were barely given any assurances. They were given a pinky promise to be independent, pinky promise to not get nuked and UNSC provided assistance ONLY IF nuclear weapons are used against them.
-
This is not true. Most NATO countries want to avoid fighting on their own soil.
-
Don't say things that encourage nuclear proliferation
How is Ukraine "their own soil"?
My expectation, and something I think shared by most NATO countries, is that the Russian regime would interpret western troops on the front line as a ground invasion of Russia by those countries. Something that would win over the Russian people into supporting an invasion of the bordering countries of Finland, Norway, Poland, and the Baltics.
Not to say that any no-fly-zone or a tripwire force in Ukraine would lead to Russians running into Narva, but there is still these sorts of non-nuclear escalations that western troops in "annexed" oblasts would likely cause.
Who knows where the red line is, but a lot of people in the west think it's located before the point of troops in Donetsk.
Some game theory about red lines in the Russia-Ukraine war: https://youtu.be/tM0ZTEz7Bzc
-
If not for nukes, Poland probably would have rolled Russia by themselves. The rest of NATO could just be emotional support.
If it was just Poland they wouldn't mind getting nuked if it means getting rid of Moscow. Ironically it's being in NATO that's holding them back.
Very true, and if the nuclear threat goes away, it'll look like a pack of junk yard dogs let loose on a kitten.
I'm out of the loop. Is Poland considered to have a strong army?
Poland's military is about half again larger than Ukraine prior to the war, large portions of it are very well trained, and their equipment is significantly better. If they decided to march to Moscow, nothing Russia has, short of nukes, would slow them down. And Poland would really like to discuss with them, some of the things that happened in WW2, in an up front and personal way.
All this shows is that other countries (China, etc.) will have carte blanche if they have nukes. If they don't, they'll get them. Imagine a nuclear armed Venezuela going after their neighbours because conventional intervention is too risky suddenly. Blah.
So it's a very good thing Russia has nukes then.
Imagine thinking it's a "very good thing" that any nation has nuclear weapons. Let alone the 5,580 nuclear warheads in Russia's stockpile.
And yes, before you whatabout, I don't think it's a "very good thing" that the U.S. has them either. I certainly don't think it's a "very good thing" that Israel and North Korea have them.
I doubt you will, but I would recommend you read this book to find out why it is absolutely not a "very good thing."
No, because they are using them as a shield to commit atrocities.
I have to assume there was some sarcasm in there that I’m missing.
Rules for life (abbreviated):
-
Never go to a second location
-
Always get the interior ministry post
-
Never get in a helicopter
-
If someone with a gun enters your car, they’re gonna kill you
-
If someone tells you they’re not going to kill you, they’re calming you down to kill you later
-
Never give up your nukes
-