"Give us Poland and Finland!" crowd shouts in Moscow

[The Romulan Republic]

I wouldn't call sanctions an attack in the way a war is. Its more "We don't want to do business with you and will try to undermine your business." Nasty, maybe, but hardly comparable to military action.

Yes and no. As far as the body count goes sanctions are obviously different. But from a political standpoint it's all the same thing. America or whom ever throwing their weight around to punish anyone who they disagree with.

Or those who are a direct threat to them.

[The Romulan Republic]

We have a national security interest in crippling Russia economically to weaken them before they continue in the direction they are obviously going and attack a NATO country. You can debate the wisdom of that approach, but I think an argument can be made for it. But thanks for the generic anti-intervention rant.

Right, so we just slam the sanctions up to 11 like the ones on North Korea.... and then Russia gives nuclear weapons to Iran, a VDV division restores order in Syria for Assad, and Putin invades the Ukraine, Moldova and Georgia before they can join NATO and installs puppet regimes to create an economic sphere that lets him ride out the sanctions better, and oh funds a coup in the Republic Srpska to have it declare independence. Meanwhile, China refuses to join these sanctions and instead locks Russia into a tight geostrategic alliance in which it is the dominant partner, ala Germany and Austro-Hungary, strengthening China and preventing the sanctions from actually causing Putin to lose power. GENIUS plan!

What would your alternative be? "Let Putin do whatever he wants."? That hardly seems like a good alternative when what he wants is militaristic expansion and oppression of his own people.

And if Putin's rash enough to do all of that (giving nukes to Iran might very well start a world war in and of itself), then we are in for some very unpleasant times regardless of what we do.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

My plan? Partition Ukraine, give half to Russia, and station tactical nuclear weapons in the western half to create a clearly defined limit of the western and Russian spheres. Not even Dugin wants to fight a nuclear war. The same for Transnistria and Gagauzia to Russia, Moldova proper to NATO with US troops and nukes. South Ossetia and Abkhazia to Russia, Georgia to NATO with nukes. The real issue is where to draw the line inside of the Ukraine, but a few days in a bath town in central Europe between responsible realist diplomats could settle that out. We'll also hold plebiscites in Narva and eastern Latvia to demonstrate popular support among ethnic Russians for their bits of those countries remaining in the EU.

[The Romulan Republic]

Divide up countries to give Russia a gift in exchange for its warmongering, the wishes of the inhabitants and the current governments be damned? And how's Russia going to react to all those nukes being placed near its border?

[Tiriol]

My plan? Partition Ukraine, give half to Russia, and station tactical nuclear weapons in the western half to create a clearly defined limit of the western and Russian spheres. Not even Dugin wants to fight a nuclear war. The same for Transnistria and Gagauzia to Russia, Moldova proper to NATO with US troops and nukes. South Ossetia and Abkhazia to Russia, Georgia to NATO with nukes. The real issue is where to draw the line inside of the Ukraine, but a few days in a bath town in central Europe between responsible realist diplomats could settle that out. We'll also hold plebiscites in Narva and eastern Latvia to demonstrate popular support among ethnic Russians for their bits of those countries remaining in the EU.

So you wish to partition smaller countries in order to appease bigger countries? You were up in arms about treatment of Native Americans but as long as it's Russia doing it to its neighbors, it's just fine and dandy?

[Irbis]

So you wish to partition smaller countries in order to appease bigger countries? You were up in arms about treatment of Native Americans but as long as it's Russia doing it to its neighbors, it's just fine and dandy?

You are aware that in Soviet Union, republic borders were mostly administration lines? Because no one expected them to be relevant in any way anyway? You could equate that to US states, in a way. Even then, you had autonomous circles and regions inside of these republics, for minorities and small nations, to guarantee them self-governance, religious and language freedom. You could equate that to reservations in US states.

And here comes the hard part: in 1989, newly created states like Ukraine and Georgia decided to fuck up the minorities and deleted any special rights they had. Some decided to rebel back, like Ossetia and Abkhazia. Some, like Crimea or Gaugazia, were too weak to do anything. The fact is, regardless of outcome, they got less rights (and more oppression) than they under Soviet Freaking Union. Which kind of crushes any feeble excuses about democracy and self determination new overlords might have had.

Sorry, supporting the ex-regions is perfectly consistent with supporting Native American rights and claiming federal government should just step in if say Arkansas tried to annex its reservations and take away all its rights on gunpoint. Even if 'stepping in' would entail making the annexed reservation fully independent from the state it was formerly in. Which is sorta the situation we now have in in various points of old Soviet Union, seeing its fall had nothing to do with any sort of democratic process and apparently Russia was the only new country even remotely interested in giving its minorities any rights or autonomies.

If you're so adamant arbitrary lines drawn on map in 1945 are absolute and cannot be changed on will of the people, how about calling for sanctioning Germany until it gives independence back to East Germany? Or for that matter, handing Finland back to Russia? Clearly 1918 revolution was illegal terrorist band sponsored by foreign government (Imperial Germany) and Putin should be fully justified in bombing Helsinki with dozens of Grad batteries until they surrender, just like Ukrainians tried to do, right?

I'd agree with you if any concerned government gave half a damn about its minority citizens and tried to make even most tiny, token gesture concerning their well being or rights, but I am afraid we waited 26 years for that and nothing but persecution and forced assimilation happened, sooo...

[Purple]

I wouldn't call sanctions an attack in the way a war is. Its more "We don't want to do business with you and will try to undermine your business." Nasty, maybe, but hardly comparable to military action.

Yes and no. As far as the body count goes sanctions are obviously different. But from a political standpoint it's all the same thing. America or whom ever throwing their weight around to punish anyone who they disagree with.

Or those who are a direct threat to them.

I am yet to see Russian tanks parading on american borders, Putin invading Alaska or anything else that would constitute an actual threat. Someone doing things you don't like does not mean he is threatening you.

[K. A. Pital]

The only positive consequences of the sanctions will be Russia's ultimate decoupling from the West for good. I find it natural for Russia to side with China (many factors there). So as long as the nutjobs are kept in check and never gain power, but Russia can never properly restore 'relations' with the West that could be summed up as raw oil, gas, metal ores and food from Russia in exchange for high-tech goods from the West, it is a good outcome.

That said, Putin is not an ultranationalist politician... he is an ordinary imperialist, which is perhaps the most insulting thing for all the Western opposition. He is doing the things Western countries used to do just a tiny while ago, and some do until present day, but he's way more brazen. Heh.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

I find the right of national self-determination to dovetail nicely with what I said about indigenous peoples, and Transnistria, Gagauzia, South Ossetia, Abkhazia represent clear and well-defined nations whose rights were stripped from them in the post-Soviet era and oppressed, sparking resistance which Russia has justly supported. The 2008 invasion of Georgia was one of the more moral wars recently fought. At any rate, the Russian Federation does have effective cultural protections for minorities, which most of the other post-Soviet states abolished. As for the Ukraine, I would remind you that Sebastobol, the Crimea, Donetsk and Lughansk all are majority Russian-language territories. Odessa oblast is a plurality Russian language territory; the usual maps show it correctly less than 50% Russian-speaking, but neglect the fact that the Ukrainian speaking population is smaller than the Russian speaking population, as the Budjak to the west of Odessa is made up of strongly pro-Russian ethnic Bulgarians who would probably rather be an autonomous republic inside of the RF than anything else.

If we go beyond mere Russian language of the oblast level, we see that Kharkov is very close to the Russian frontier, and the northeastern area speaks a dialect of "Ukrainian" that is mutually intelligible with Russian on an intergrade. At the same time, Zaporizhia has a large Russian rural population. Though based on the large-scale population support in the cities of Zaporizhia and Dnepropetrovsk for the Ukraine, they would be west of the dividing line, there's very little doubt that a reasonably Russian territory could be crafted out of Donetsk and Lughansk and substantial parts of Kharkov and Zaporizhia and lesser parts of Dnepropetrovsk oblasts. Odessa of course necessarily forms the core of a sort of second-Kaliningrad exclave.

I don't believe any of the polling data because of course everyone in the post-Soviet sphere lies about these things (conversely I'm not really sure Putin is actually that popular, either), since they "know" their answers are being checked by government intelligence and correlated for demonstrations of loyalty. In the climate of fear the Kiev Junta produces by assassinating its political rivals and suspending civil rights while prosecuting a war to maintain a tightly centralized state when dozens of countries like my own function just fine on a federalist basis, the idea that people will speak honestly in polling is a farce, the blind acceptance of which by the west shows a level of credulity or mendacity bordering on insanity. The only way the real opinions of people in the eastern Ukraine would ever be known is with a UN supervised plebiscite, but since neither side would agree to that, relying on demographic cues and previously demonstrated evidence to draw a partition line would work best, and then if Russia suffers no pro-Ukrainian insurgency of its own, we know it's worked.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

And how's Russia going to react to all those nukes being placed near its border?

Why, probably deploy their own tactical nuclear weapons. Who cares? The balance of peace was maintained for 40 years in this state in Europe historically with far more ideological reasons for conflict than there are now.

[Kane Starkiller]

That plan is a combination of the most spineless version of appeasement and the most reckless version of confrontation.
I mean first you give half of Ukraine to Russia thus strengthening their position greatly and then you put nukes in western Ukraine to piss them off. That plan doesn't even come close to making sense.
Also I hear all those English speaking Irish don't consider themselves to be English nor do they want to be a part of England.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

That plan is a combination of the most spineless version of appeasement and the most reckless version of confrontation.
I mean first you give half of Ukraine to Russia thus strengthening their position greatly and then you put nukes in western Ukraine to piss them off. That plan doesn't even come close to making sense.
Also I hear all those English speaking Irish don't consider themselves to be English nor do they want to be a part of England.

In negotiation, both sides get some of what they want. It's this concept foreign to Americans, who have trained themselves into think the world should obey America's whims completely. It is very simple -- it is neither appeasement nor reckless confrontation.

US: "We won the Cold War and are aggressively expanding into your sphere of influence."
Russia: "We will take all necessary measures to secure that sphere."

Negotiation: "We draw out new, clear lines of influence."

Since in this case the US demands by principle that countries be free to choose their international associations, the only way to delineate a sphere of influence is to allow the territorial aggrandizement of the Russian state.

In compensation, of course, the areas of those countries not added to Russia must immediately join NATO and be put under the US nuclear umbrella. The EU and NATO failed by not admitting these countries sooner if they wanted to utterly cripple Russia; the failure must be acknowledged and Putin engaged. Of course, since we can't let countries with active hostilities inside of their territory join a nuclear defensive alliance, Russia has succeeded in crippling the ability of Moldova, the Ukraine and Georgia to actually join NATO. So negotiation secures the cores of each nation in their ability to do so. Everyone involves loses something and wins something. The Russian sphere is permanently contracted compared to what it was during the Cold War; the US admits that it screwed up its eastward expansion and has to settle for partitions that favour Russia to some real extent. The countries involved get the NATO nuclear shield in exchange for giving up territory.

That's real diplomacy, instead of just shouting at a microphone about how superiour your morality is ala the Wilsonian Obama state department with Psaki et. al. This was also how the peace was kept in Europe for 100 years, and with nuclear deterrence, WWI would have never happened to interrupt that streak.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

By the way, there was nothing wrong with the Munich Accords. The only problem was the failure to prepare a military offensive into Germany in March of 1939 when Germany broke the accords and annexed the rest of Bohemia. Of course, nuclear weapons would have prevented the situation from spiraling if they were well-entrenched in the command and decisionmaking structures, like they are in modern Russia and the US.

[Simon_Jester]

I would be interested to hear anyone with a serious, intellectually coherent alternative to Duchess' ideas.

I mean seriously, at least Duchess is suggesting a plan, that for whatever faults one might find with it, can present a credible claim for preventing further open warfare in Eastern Europe while giving every ethnic group in the region as much as possible of what they want.

Tiriol? Romulan Republic? Do you guys have an actual plan?

I mean...

Fighting a war with Russia over the matter is suicide. So that's out of the question.

Shouting about how 'unacceptable' Russian actions are is foolishness. Regardless of whether their actions are right or wrong... We have no means to coerce Russia into anything they really don't want to do. So shouting at them and posturing just wastes time and allows more people to die in the Ukrainian Civil War, before some solution actually gets found.

if shooting won't work, and shouting won't work, exactly what is the plan?

In and of itself, the fact that nobody opposing Duchess' plan has advanced a plan of their own doesn't PROVE her plan is good. But it definitely tends to militate against saying that her plan is bad. If it's a bad plan, someone should be able to come up with a better plan to replace it with, even if the better plan is "do nothing whatsoever" or some such.

By the way, there was nothing wrong with the Munich Accords. The only problem was the failure to prepare a military offensive into Germany in March of 1939 when Germany broke the accords and annexed the rest of Bohemia.

I thought that was January...?

[Steve]

No, it was March 1939 that Germany marched into Bohemia and Fascist Slovakia was formed.

[The Romulan Republic]

And how's Russia going to react to all those nukes being placed near its border?

Why, probably deploy their own tactical nuclear weapons. Who cares? The balance of peace was maintained for 40 years in this state in Europe historically with far more ideological reasons for conflict than there are now.

Perhaps because we managed to get through decades without nuclear war, there is this attitude now that it can never happen. Which seems to me to be a terribly dangerous assumption to make, especially considering the times that we came very, very close in the past. We can't realistically expect to get lucky forever.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

I don't think it was luck. That's where we're different, right there. I think it was a systematic result of any kind of power structure that people in it regard the nuclear balance of power as something the outcome of which is too unpredictable to risk an exchange upon. Furthermore it's not like this proliferates weapons to new power structures, either. So while I think the Ayatollahs would be quite responsible with nuclear weapons, this would still at least serve to reduce the risk of them or anyone else obtaining them. It's simply back to business at usual for two power structures (Russia and NATO) that have kept that business at peace since the 50s. And considering we're already going back to that situation while there's an active proxy war going on, wouldn't it be better to go back to it without an active proxy war going on?

[Flagg]

Fuck me, is there ANY thread concerning dangerous national or international issues where The Romulan Republic doesn't fucking light his hair on fire and run in circles screaming about how the sky is falling and we're all gonna fucking die? Nuclear world war over a bunch of slack jawed, likely drunk, Russian mouth breathers chanting about invading Finland and Poland mean about as much as the sacred vows in 50% of American marriages. Calm the fuck down.

I do try not to single people out, but it's a fucking pattern with you, TRR. And it's really fucking annoying. I'm not telling you what to do, as I'm not a mod, and the idea of being one on this forum is about as sane as thinking Russia will invade Finland and Poland, so feel free to keep lighter in hand. But I for one, would take you a lot more seriously (that's a lie, I'll take you seriously for the first time ever) if you would pop the bubble of dire threats around every corner you live in and join (most) of the rest of us in reality.

[The Romulan Republic]

Your fixation with me is rather disturbing. Nor did I say there is going to be a nuclear war, much less over just this pack of yahoos. Grow the fuck up, stop lying, and try something other than personal attacks for a while.

[Simon_Jester]

Perhaps because we managed to get through decades without nuclear war, there is this attitude now that it can never happen. Which seems to me to be a terribly dangerous assumption to make, especially considering the times that we came very, very close in the past. We can't realistically expect to get lucky forever.

I don't think it was luck. That's where we're different, right there. I think it was a systematic result of any kind of power structure that people in it regard the nuclear balance of power as something the outcome of which is too unpredictable to risk an exchange upon. Furthermore it's not like this proliferates weapons to new power structures, either. So while I think the Ayatollahs would be quite responsible with nuclear weapons, this would still at least serve to reduce the risk of them or anyone else obtaining them. It's simply back to business at usual for two power structures (Russia and NATO) that have kept that business at peace since the 50s. And considering we're already going back to that situation while there's an active proxy war going on, wouldn't it be better to go back to it without an active proxy war going on?

I'd say that there's always an element of randomness- the probability of a nuclear war breaking out in a "nuclear stalemate" scenario like the Cold War is never literally zero.

But it's not pure blind chance, especially when both sides take certain reasonable steps to reduce the probability of a random crisis blowing up in their faces. Such as having a presidential hotline between the nations, such as getting together and actually negotiating the partition of a territory the two sides might want to fight over, rather than just posturing and squabbling and sending 'advisors' to shoot at each other.

[Flagg]

Your fixation with me is rather disturbing. Nor did I say there is going to be a nuclear war, much less over just this pack of yahoos. Grow the fuck up, stop lying, and try something other than personal attacks for a while.

I have no fixation with you beyond "oh great, chicken little" when I see you post in a thread and I'm usually right because you say shit like You literally said in your first post, that the (now you call them "yahoos", before you did not) were chanting for nuclear world war. Then you said we had to build up our non-functioning barely working missile defense system which would likely just provoke Russia and make Putin stronger domestically as well as enact even stricter sanctions to "cripple the Russian economy (also would make Putin stronger domestically as his shit economy won't be his fault, but the evil wests!) before they attack a NATO country, which is like... Batshit insane. So no, I'm not a liar and I'm not so much as attacking you, as pointing out that you sound like that woman in the movie 'Airplane' in the classic scene where there is a long line of people trying to "calm her down" by hitting her with variously stronger implements. So like, take it down a notch.

Fuck knows, I'm trying to.

[The Romulan Republic]

The people that are the subject of this thread are calling for a course of action that, if pursued, would probably lead to a nuclear world war. That doesn't mean Putin will necessarily listen to them, but I trust him as far as I could throw him. He's certainly been rather belligerent lately, so forgive me for not trusting his good intentions.

And I think its appropriate for the US to take some steps to prepare for the worst case scenario.

I do sometimes engage in melodrama or hyperbole, but on the whole I try to post what I honestly think based on the information I am aware of. You are, of course, free to disagree with me.

[K. A. Pital]

I have an alternative plan. Stop buying Russian oil and gas and cut it off from SWIFT. Russian economy will then collapse, maybe a revolution cannot be ruled out, but it is very likely Russia will become China's satelite. The weaker the West makes Russia, the less negotiating power Russia has with China. The more influence China has on Russia.

Eventually, a weakened Russia stops being aggressive because China says this will ruin their relations. China then helps Russia the best it can with infrastructure and stuff, and the West loses Russia.

It will happen anyway. Ukraine is likely to be partitioned or just collapse on its own either way, so there is no reason to care, except making statements of concern once in a while. Russia will not be friends with the West again, and by that I mean a period of several decades, at the very least. China will anyway have more and more sway over Russia.

The only thing that matters is to avoid a big war, because winning a nuclear war without destroying the world's life improvements of the last two centuries is impossible. This means that Ukraine can get as hot as you'd want it to get, just like Vietnam or Korea, or alternatively a slow or frozen conflict like Georgia or Moldavia. So as long as the rules of the game are understood (and we are back to the old game of mine versus yours, at least in that part of the globe), anything goes. Hell, maybe Ukraine even wins this war with enough Western aid, though very unlikely.

Key is, any plan that aims to save lives now has to make sure the conflict is frozen. A plan to prevent future conflicts may need to unfreeze this one and clearly delineate influence zones, otherwise a repeat is possible, and make Russia more cautious.

[Thanas]

I would be interested to hear anyone with a serious, intellectually coherent alternative to Duchess' ideas.

I mean seriously, at least Duchess is suggesting a plan, that for whatever faults one might find with it, can present a credible claim for preventing further open warfare in Eastern Europe while giving every ethnic group in the region as much as possible of what they want.

The plan is not really that great because the solution seems to be to:
a) capitulate to Russia's demands completely
b) introduce nukes to every volatile region.

A much better plan would be to simply continue to contain Russia, continue sanctions, continue diversifying the gas supply and watch as their economy collapses. While giving out generous visa allowances and work permits for those who want to flee.

[Kane Starkiller]

In negotiation, both sides get some of what they want. It's this concept foreign to Americans, who have trained themselves into think the world should obey America's whims completely. It is very simple -- it is neither appeasement nor reckless confrontation.

US: "We won the Cold War and are aggressively expanding into your sphere of influence."
Russia: "We will take all necessary measures to secure that sphere."

Negotiation: "We draw out new, clear lines of influence."

Since in this case the US demands by principle that countries be free to choose their international associations, the only way to delineate a sphere of influence is to allow the territorial aggrandizement of the Russian state.

In compensation, of course, the areas of those countries not added to Russia must immediately join NATO and be put under the US nuclear umbrella. The EU and NATO failed by not admitting these countries sooner if they wanted to utterly cripple Russia; the failure must be acknowledged and Putin engaged. Of course, since we can't let countries with active hostilities inside of their territory join a nuclear defensive alliance, Russia has succeeded in crippling the ability of Moldova, the Ukraine and Georgia to actually join NATO. So negotiation secures the cores of each nation in their ability to do so. Everyone involves loses something and wins something. The Russian sphere is permanently contracted compared to what it was during the Cold War; the US admits that it screwed up its eastward expansion and has to settle for partitions that favour Russia to some real extent. The countries involved get the NATO nuclear shield in exchange for giving up territory.

That's real diplomacy, instead of just shouting at a microphone about how superiour your morality is ala the Wilsonian Obama state department with Psaki et. al. This was also how the peace was kept in Europe for 100 years, and with nuclear deterrence, WWI would have never happened to interrupt that streak.

This is not real diplomacy this is two 11 year old boys pretending to be presidents of US and Russia. Nuclear weapons in Estonia have certain implications for Russia regardless of how much of Ukraine they received and they won't be less pissed off by those nukes if they are "given" eastern Ukraine. If you are going to put nuclear weapons in Estonia (or Western Ukraine) just put them. A country does not have to be in NATO to be a strategic ally of US. Is Portugal a closer US ally than Israel?
This is not rocket science: US, Germany and UK have a huge economic superiority to Russia and can provide assistance and support to Ukraine including rebuilding of Ukraine military over the long term. Russia tried, and failed, to split Ukraine in half and there is absolutely no reason to "give" Russia that what they failed to secure on their own.

I have an alternative plan. Stop buying Russian oil and gas and cut it off from SWIFT. Russian economy will then collapse, maybe a revolution cannot be ruled out, but it is very likely Russia will become China's satelite. The weaker the West makes Russia, the less negotiating power Russia has with China. The more influence China has on Russia.

Eventually, a weakened Russia stops being aggressive because China says this will ruin their relations. China then helps Russia the best it can with infrastructure and stuff, and the West loses Russia.

It will happen anyway. Ukraine is likely to be partitioned or just collapse on its own either way, so there is no reason to care, except making statements of concern once in a while. Russia will not be friends with the West again, and by that I mean a period of several decades, at the very least. China will anyway have more and more sway over Russia.

The only thing that matters is to avoid a big war, because winning a nuclear war without destroying the world's life improvements of the last two centuries is impossible. This means that Ukraine can get as hot as you'd want it to get, just like Vietnam or Korea, or alternatively a slow or frozen conflict like Georgia or Moldavia. So as long as the rules of the game are understood (and we are back to the old game of mine versus yours, at least in that part of the globe), anything goes. Hell, maybe Ukraine even wins this war with enough Western aid, though very unlikely.

Key is, any plan that aims to save lives now has to make sure the conflict is frozen. A plan to prevent future conflicts may need to unfreeze this one and clearly delineate influence zones, otherwise a repeat is possible, and make Russia more cautious.

Ukraine is already partitioned, but not nearly to the extent Russia hoped since pro Russian sentiment failed to reach critical mass anywhere other than in Crimea, Donetsk and Luhansk. The economic situation in Ukraine is tough but not as tough in Western Germany in 1946 and US did manage to make a strong ally out of it.
How close Russia will move to China is ultimately up to Russia though the closer Russia and China get the closer India and US will get.