this post was submitted on 11 Nov 2024
177 points (97.8% liked)

World News

39019 readers
2611 users here now

A community for discussing events around the World

Rules:

Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.


Lemmy World Partners

News !news@lemmy.world

Politics !politics@lemmy.world

World Politics !globalpolitics@lemmy.world


Recommendations

For Firefox users, there is media bias / propaganda / fact check plugin.

https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/media-bias-fact-check/

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

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.

top 38 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] PugJesus@lemmy.world 106 points 4 days ago (4 children)

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.

[–] atzanteol@sh.itjust.works 37 points 4 days ago (1 children)

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.

[–] PugJesus@lemmy.world 12 points 4 days ago (2 children)

The easy solution is to show that nukes are not protection against all conventional intervention. We should have given Zelenskyy a no-fly zone back when he asked for one.

[–] atzanteol@sh.itjust.works 11 points 4 days ago (2 children)
[–] PugJesus@lemmy.world 6 points 4 days ago

Easy as in simple, not easy as in likely or without cost.

[–] whyNotSquirrel@sh.itjust.works 0 points 4 days ago (2 children)

Step 1: Put boots on Russian territory

Step 2: (nuclear) Winter is coming

Step 3: 💥 ~~profit~~ 💥

[–] gravitas_deficiency@sh.itjust.works 3 points 4 days ago* (last edited 1 day ago)

Nobody’s saying NATO should invade Russia.

We’re saying NATO could EASILY establish IADS over the vast majority of Ukraine to defend their civilian population and infrastructure.

[–] jlh@lemmy.jlh.name 0 points 4 days ago

Put up proof that you know this would happen, or stop fear-mongering.

[–] freeman@sh.itjust.works -1 points 4 days ago

But they are. Its been settled decades ago.

[–] jmcs@discuss.tchncs.de 21 points 4 days ago (3 children)

The only thing that surprises me in geopolitics right now is that Iran is not mass producing nukes yet.

[–] PugJesus@lemmy.world 9 points 4 days ago

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.

[–] Badeendje@lemmy.world 3 points 4 days ago (1 children)

The moment they would try to make the last dash to nukes, is the moment the US would be bombing the everlasting shit out of Iran to prevent it.

[–] jmcs@discuss.tchncs.de 5 points 4 days ago (1 children)

Like they did in North Korea?

[–] Badeendje@lemmy.world 8 points 4 days ago

North Korea was under Chinese protection. This is what Iran likely is trying to do with Russia.

[–] NoneOfUrBusiness@fedia.io 1 points 4 days ago

They've been clear that they don't do it because they don't think they'd make Iran more secure.

[–] kent_eh@lemmy.ca 8 points 4 days ago* (last edited 4 days ago)

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.

[–] scarabic@lemmy.world 6 points 4 days ago

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.

[–] captainlezbian@lemmy.world 19 points 4 days ago (1 children)

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.

[–] GoodEye8@lemm.ee 7 points 3 days ago

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.

[–] jlh@lemmy.jlh.name 33 points 4 days ago (2 children)
  1. This is not true. Most NATO countries want to avoid fighting on their own soil.

  2. Don't say things that encourage nuclear proliferation

[–] kerrigan778@lemmy.world 12 points 3 days ago (1 children)

Thank goodness an expert is here to swat down the drivel a top NATO Admiral is spewing.

[–] jlh@lemmy.jlh.name 0 points 3 days ago (1 children)

No NATO country has expressed concern about being nuked. This is a question of geopolitics, not military strategy.

[–] LouNeko@lemmy.world 2 points 3 days ago

Poland? Germany?

[–] wewbull@feddit.uk 12 points 4 days ago (1 children)

How is Ukraine "their own soil"?

[–] jlh@lemmy.jlh.name -1 points 4 days ago* (last edited 4 days ago) (1 children)

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

[–] boonhet@lemm.ee 1 points 3 days ago (1 children)

lead to Russians running into Narva

I have bad news for you

[–] jlh@lemmy.jlh.name 1 points 3 days ago

I mean Putin's soldiers, not Russian speakers.

[–] Skyrmir@lemmy.world 29 points 4 days ago (2 children)

If not for nukes, Poland probably would have rolled Russia by themselves. The rest of NATO could just be emotional support.

[–] barsoap@lemm.ee 11 points 4 days ago (1 children)

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.

[–] Skyrmir@lemmy.world 5 points 4 days ago

Very true, and if the nuclear threat goes away, it'll look like a pack of junk yard dogs let loose on a kitten.

[–] ouch@lemmy.world 1 points 3 days ago (1 children)

I'm out of the loop. Is Poland considered to have a strong army?

[–] Skyrmir@lemmy.world 3 points 3 days ago

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.

[–] troyunrau@lemmy.ca 24 points 4 days ago

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.