Global Implications of the Ukraine Crisis

[JadedWolf]

We should start watching Putin closely in next few days, if he starts growing a mustache we are in trouble.

 

I don't think he has the face to carry a mustache.

[Valsuelm]

 

We should start watching Putin closely in next few days, if he starts growing a mustache we are in trouble.

 

I don't think he has the face to carry a mustache.

 

 

Eh....

 

He surprisingly can carry one quite well.

 

https://ixquick-proxy.com/do/show_picture.pl?l=english&cat=pics&c=pf&q=putin+moustache&h=597&w=600&th=158&tw=160&fn=1366178722_putin_moustache_07.jpg&fs=88.8%20k&el=boss_pics_1&tu=http:%2F%2Fts4.mm.bing.net%2Fth%3Fid%3DHN.608005491913196503%26pid%3D15.1%26H%3D158%26W%3D160&rl=NONE&u=http:%2F%2Fwww.xoxma.lv%2Fraznoe%2F27147-usy-dlya-putina-14-foto.html&udata=e87f4dd4caadca418941c997306e46da&rid=NGLNTRRPSKLT&oiu=http:%2F%2Fwww.xoxma.lv%2Fuploads%2Fposts%2F2013-04%2F1366178722_putin_moustache_07.jpg

[JadedWolf]

Eh....

 

He surprisingly can carry one quite well.

 

Some of those do look good. I liked the Lenin look best.

 

http://www.xoxma.lv/uploads/posts/2013-04/1366178765_putin_moustache_11.jpg

 

Edit: actually, he should grow a matching goatee.

 

Mind you, some of the other mustaches make him look like an actor from a certain genre of movies. Shall we say, "nature documentaries".

Edited April 17, 2014 by JadedWolf

[Drowsy Emperor]

 

Jews ordered to register in east Ukraine. If this is true, I would say that it's quite worrisome development.

Wasn't Kiev supposed to be the one with Nazis and fascists and whatever?

 

Joking, of course. This is a very troubling development, if it's indeed true. Though given the antisemitism in Russia, pro-Russians being ****nugget scumbags is not that surprising.

 

 

http://www.newrepublic.com/article/117415/relax-ukraine-not-ordering-its-jews-register

 

The only thing that's unsurprising is your generalplan ost racism.

[Gromnir]

 

Eh....

 

He surprisingly can carry one quite well.

 

Some of those do look good. I liked the Lenin look best.

 

http://www.xoxma.lv/uploads/posts/2013-04/1366178765_putin_moustache_11.jpg

 

Edit: actually, he should grow a matching goatee.

 

Mind you, some of the other mustaches make him look like an actor from a certain genre of movies. Shall we say, "nature documentaries".

 

 

another pic of putin with facial hair.

 

http://hdstarspics.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/12/timothy-dalton-10.jpg

 

HA! Good Fun!

[Zoraptor]

Jews ordered to register in east Ukraine. If this is true, I would say that it's quite worrisome development.

And for anyone who read that article earlier they have now fixed a rather significant, but assuredly completely accidental 'translation error' where they originally had the Donetsk Republich leader admitting his group was behind it- when he actually said the exact opposite and it was distributed under his organisation's name but was not authored by them. Still, I'm sure it was an honest mistake.

 

(To be fair, at least they did fix it, more than we'll get from certain other parties who leapt on it like a Pavlovian conditioned Kangaroo expecting a tasty morsel.)

[Gromnir]

*eye roll*

 

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-26786213

 

even if the masked men outside the synagogue were part o' some elaborate ruse (russians do love conspiracy theories after all) to make Donestk look bad (*snort*) such a ploy only works 'cause it is believable. 

 

HA! Good Fun!

[Wrath of Dagon]

The essence of butthurt is taking something oh so very seriously, and oh so very personally.

 

I don't think the Kiev protesters and the separatists are at all comparable. One was fighting against domination by a foreign power

That's a bit harsh, I'm sure the argument would be that the EU wouldn't be foreign once they'd joined- though the domination part is pretty accurate...

 

Meh, at least the easterners don't want to force the western parts into a union with Russia that they don't want and only want the right to do so themselves, which puts them a step above the westerners. Who don't have the same consideration when forcing their eastern brethren into an EU process that they don't want.

 

You really think joining the EU is the same as becoming a Russian vassal or breaking up a sovereign country? I guess a lot of European countries missed their big chance to be invaded by SU, just ask East Germans how fun that was.

 

 

it's just that assistance for such movements by foreign powers is both unethical and illegal.

No, at least on the illegal part. The ICJ judgement on Kosovo established that it is not illegal to outright secede under the complete military occupation of an external power. And while it would be nice if '(un)ethical' meant anything in politics, it doesn't.

 

I guess it depends on what qualifies as illegal. I suspect the ICJ decision had a lot more to do with politics than with justice. Edit: Also, it's not necessarily that the secession itself is illegal, it's the actions of a foreign power in facilitating/forcing that secession. Edited April 18, 2014 by Wrath of Dagon

[Tagaziel]

http://www.newrepublic.com/article/117415/relax-ukraine-not-ordering-its-jews-register

 

The only thing that's unsurprising is your generalplan ost racism.

If you read my post, rather than skipping to the end, you'd notice I said "If it's indeed true", because I had trouble believing anyone would be this stupid. Good thing they're not.

 

Love your ad hominems, though. Really refreshing to be called a Nazi.

[obyknven]

OFFICIAL STATEMENT OF THE GOVERNMENT OF THE DONETSK PEOPLE'S REPUBLIC

 

Today, on 04.15.2014, the newly founded Donetsk People's Republic became the target of military aggression on part of Ukraine.

The Ukrainian authority that came to power as a result of an armed anti-constitutional coup, initiated military actions in the territory of the Donetsk People's Republic, using the soldiers of Ukrainian armed forces, gunmen from illegal armed bands and servicemen from foreign private military companies financed by the USA.

Under the guise of false statements about an alleged anti-terrorist operation, they actually declared war on the people, using heavy weapons and aircraft. The lives of civilians are in danger. As Kiev has warned, the possibility of large-scale missile and bombing raids against cities is not out of the question.

Thus, the fascist regime of Ukraine, supported and financed by the USA and the Western European countries has actually started genocide of the Russian-speaking population in the territory of the Donetsk People's Republic.

The foundation of the Donetsk People's Republic is an objective reality that became necessary as a consequence of complete collapse of the Ukrainian government institutions after an anti-constitutional coup, it was founded in order to defend constitutional rights and liberties of the people residing in the territory of the Donetsk People's Republic.

Being aware that it is the last obstacle on the aggressor's way to the destruction of Russia, the people and the government of the Donetsk People's Republic, the command and personnel of the South Eastern Army hereby declare that the aggressor will be immediately rebuffed as it deserves.

We demand that the reactionary circles of the USA and the Western European countries who gave the Kiev regime their blessing to perform a military operation stop aggression and stop supporting and financing the illegitimate Ukrainian "authorities".

We apply to the multinational people of the Russian Federation, to our Russian brothers, to the authorities of the Russian Federation and to Vladimir Vladimirovich Putin in person with a request to render diplomatic, humanitarian and, if possible, military aid to the Donetsk People's Republic, to act as a guarantor of its security, to curb the presumptuous death squads, to establish peace and to ensure the holding of peaceful nationwide referendum.

We ask the multinational people of the Russian Federation, our Russian brothers, the authorities of the Russian Federation and Vladimir Vladimirovich Putin in person to consider extending recognition to the Donetsk People's Republic as an international entity and concluding a treaty of political, economical and military cooperation with it.

We, the people of all the 180 ethnic groups living in Donbass, are Russians.
We were born as Russians, we live as Russians and we shall die as Russians if need be.
God and Russia are with us.

The enemy will be crushed.
The victory will be ours!

Russia don't help to Donetsk republic and acting today AGAINST them.  Eastern-Ukrainian uprisings is not result of Russian conspiracy. Russian government really feared by such protests against authorities  (typical Class war - Russian capitalists in alliance with US and Ukrainian capitalists against  independent people)  It's pure people rebellion against criminal Ukrainian government.
 

[Sarex]

You really think joining the EU is the same as becoming a Russian vassal or breaking up a sovereign country? I guess a lot of European countries missed their big chance to be invaded by SU, just ask East Germans how fun that was.

 

Serbia here, pretty much the same.

[Hassat Hunter]

So, been away a small while, read the news, see an agreement was made...

 

Agreement pretty much consisted of "East Ukrain should listen to Kiev and give up their weapons, and stop protesting at once!"

Seriously? You're kidding right.

 

Was that the same agreement given in Syria? "Hey, rebels, just... give up your weapons and let Demascus control you. No hard feelings!"

 

I'm *so* shocked they didn't listen to that (both parties). That's some Grade-A negotiations. Usually that means both parties give something up. Not one party is forced to obey the other party. That's not negotiations, that's just another ultimatum. You know, those things who've been ignored 2 or 3 times already?

It seems to be another day to facepalm hard the stupidity of international relations from all sides.

[Walsingham]

So what's your groovy solution, then Hassat?

[Hassat Hunter]

Split up in 2 countries, as the people want (last I heard that was called 'democracy')

 

West wont force its points on the east, east wont force its poinsts on the West.

But I guess that's too easy, no?

 

EDIT:

In their infinite wisdom Kiev put up another ultimatum. Because they haven't been ridiculed enough for the previous ones. Also, with what army?
This is just getting pathetic...

Edited April 18, 2014 by Hassat Hunter

[obyknven]

 Nazianal Guards  vs Ukrainian army. Ukrainian junta begin cleansings in military forces .Kramatorsk. Nazianal Guards capture own Ukrainian military unit.  During operation wounded local security guard.

http://youtu.be/7Hpg71D7SKU

Ukrainian media portrayed this event as victory upon "terrorists".

[Sarex]

The problem is that without the east, the west is screwed. All the production in Ukraine is in the East, so then West Ukraine would depend on the EU for survival for years to come. I think that ultimately the east would be better off without the west, but that won't happen willingly.

[Tagaziel]

So what's your groovy solution, then Hassat?

Balkanization and the 1990s.

[213374U]

So, been away a small while, read the news, see an agreement was made...

 

Agreement pretty much consisted of "East Ukrain should listen to Kiev and give up their weapons, and stop protesting at once!"

Seriously? You're kidding right.

 

Was that the same agreement given in Syria? "Hey, rebels, just... give up your weapons and let Demascus control you. No hard feelings!"

 

I'm *so* shocked they didn't listen to that (both parties). That's some Grade-A negotiations. Usually that means both parties give something up. Not one party is forced to obey the other party. That's not negotiations, that's just another ultimatum. You know, those things who've been ignored 2 or 3 times already?

It seems to be another day to facepalm hard the stupidity of international relations from all sides.

 

The "agreement" is one of bare minimums. There cannot be any dialogue between the authorities and other parties while the state monopoly on power is challenged, or rather, no dialogue will be considered. And while it may seem that the separatists aren't getting anything out of this, in fact their unofficial and decentralized nature is going to make them much harder to police than the actions of the Ukrainian government. If the Kiev government continues to execute their "anti-terror operations" regardless, they will be in clear violation of the terms of the deal, and this would be the second multi-party agreement they go back on.

 

Russia will simply continue to do whatever they are or are not doing, they will continue to deny any involvement, and the back-and-forth of covert shenanigans will continue. But by backing this deal they can at least pretend they are trying to de-escalate the situation. I don't believe anyone actually expects these negotiations to go anywhere, because, from what I read, a serious constitutional reform for Ukraine wasn't on the table before the talks even begun, so the rebels have no reason to quit.

[Zoraptor]

Yeah, Russia knows the separatists are not going to trust the westerners/ coup government in any case, since they reneged on the deals made during the February crisis including those involving EU mediation- before the ink had dried, even. And Russia won't genuinely pressure them to, as the separatists ignoring their pleas plays right into their "we're not involved, honest!" hand. Massive diplomatic victory for Russia, as with Syria, and the US at least knows it by shouting about more sanctions from the rooftops to try and make tough prior to the mid terms.

 

The only bright spot for the Kiev government is that they now have an excuse to avoid further embarrassment and abject failure from their 'anti terror' operations.

[Rostere]

Sorry for taking so long time to reply. I hope you will bear with me when I reply to week-old posts.

 

Well, the current government did overthrouw the pro-Russian government.

They simply do the same thing the EU and US do to Russia, 'sanctions'... you seriously think Moscow would reward the people who overthrew the pro-Russia government and instigated a pro-EU government?

That's pretty naieve.

 

Pretty much went the way I expect, Russia will no longer support Ukrain, and they will suffer for it. But you can't really blame Russia since the government that they dealt with was overthrown by pro-EU people, and they just have to see for themselves the EU can't offer them nearly the same Russia did.

Really seems like standard politics to me. They can complain about Russia, but the wind *will* turn if the pro-EU party makes life miserable, and if Russia then offers a helping hand, rather than doing so now, which will only show Moscow weak, and the Kiev rioteers victorious...

 

You can't really complain much about the hand feeding you stop doing that after you bite it hard.

 

See, this is exactly the kind of sentiments I'm talking about. You think that just because an extremist clique which were prominent during the protests are represented in government, that means Russia must "punish" Ukraine. This kind of primitive instincts is some residue from when we were cavemen and fighting dangerous animals. It doesn't work with nations and governments. Putin dislikes the Ukrainian government. He claims to like the Ukrainian people. Thus, he wants to make things good for the Ukrainians, to show them his good intent. A party whose main issue is to be anti-Russian will look like idiots and be voted from office at first possibility if Putin had instead gave the Ukraine more support the crucial moments after the revolution.

 

Ukrainian government. Ukrainian people. Two different things.

That is what should be Russia's priority number one: seek support from the Ukrainian people to align Ukraine with Russia. Instead, in this darkest hour of the Ukrainian nation, they are doing their worst to make life hell for the inhabitants, the ordinary Ukrainians. "GRRH, Ukraine bad, punch Ukraine" Gas prices, invasions, threats, hate campaigns on Russian TV, you name it. It's not pretty and it's not subtle. Now think about what the Ukrainian ultra-nationalists have been saying all along, even since before the protests which triggered the revolution. They are saying that all Russia wants is to control Ukraine, Russia wants to oppress Ukrainians, and so on and so forth. Putin is playing into their hands! People will look at TV and then conclude "Gee, I guess those Svoboda crackpots were right about the Russians after all". Russia is falling into the same kind of trap on Ukraine as the US did with the Iraq sanctions during the nineties.

You say that the wind will turn if the pro-EU parties' rule turns out to bring no economic relief. I'm afraid Russia might be in for a much worse situation in that case if they don't change their behaviour soon. If things turn to ****, Ukrainians will blame Russia for their woes and we will get a dolchstosslegende about how the Russian-aligned Yanukovich first sold out Ukraine, how Russian militias proceeded to destabilize and split the country and how Putin fought hard against their independence from Russia's sphere of influence.

 

 

He's ruined any hope of regaining personal trust among many Ukrainians, despite the historical closeness of the Russian and the Ukrainian people and the great potential for an alliance.

I enjoy your posts a great deal, Rostere, though I must point out that you should be careful with such claims. Geographical closeness does not translate to historical closeness and 20th century violence created a real right between Ukrainians and Russians (which is common for every country that was invaded and subjugated by the Soviet Union).

Indeed, but I speak mostly of long-term potential due to their shared culture (which is due to geographical proximity), et.c. and not the current situation only.

 

 

 

After Yanukovich's ouster, Russia should have condemned him harshly for his corruption, offered magnanimous bailout deals with no strings attached, and in every way extended a helping hand, even directly to those who are rightfully condemned as fascists and (pseudo-) neo-nazis. That would have stopped that movement in their tracks. Ukraine would have realized there is no need to fear Russia or Russians, or to allow their country to be divided by petty sectarian politics, but no. Instead Putin came out only very vaguely against Yanukovich and offered him refuge, he retracted his bailout deals, he steeply increased the gas prices (which will directly affect many ordinary Ukrainians who will resent him for it), all the while drumming up crazy amounts of hate against Ukrainians in general and in particular a small group of Ukrainian right-wing extremists. I say, if it was the EU's plan to sow division between Ukrainians and Russians and alienate Russia to former Soviet countries with a Russian population, Putin has unknowingly perfectly played into their hands all along.

 

 

Is this a joke? The opposition forces signed a deal with Yanukovich which the EU brokered and then broke it, literally 15 minutes later, the ink on the signatures didn't even have time to dry. Are those the sort of people one can trust? Of course, that all based on the wrong presumption that they're actually choosing anything themselves when all they do is take their orders from Washingon and EU. 

 

Naturally Russia isn't going to sit idly by an let Ukraine be removed from its sphere of influence, because even half of Ukraine is better than no Ukraine.

They're between a rock and a hard place. The revolution sets the stage for the acceptance of Ukraine into NATO which means that the missiles the US wants to place to threaten Russia can be placed close enough to render the Russian response system meaningless. Its like a prelude to a Cuban crisis.

So they had to do something drastic and they're doing it.

 

The EU/Washington is wholly to blame. When Yanukovich accepted Moscow's bailout deal they immediately organized a coup to bring him down. Washington doesn't accept the existence of Russian interests anywhere in eastern europe and does everything to push NATO ever more eastwards right up to Russia's borders. Europeans, in their infinite stupidity are playing along and antagonizing Russia for the sake of the US even though they themselves have no conflict with Russia, which isn't threatening them in any way.

In fact what Washington and London fear most of all is the possibility of a tight alliance between Germany and Russia, so this whole crisis has the added benefit of souring the relations between the two countries. A serious German-Russian business and political alliance would throw the continent right out of US dominion.

 

You do it as well. All this aggressive complete nonsense. "Naturally Russia isn't going to sit idly by", "So they had to do something drastic and they're doing it". It's laughable you know, how much you remind me of certain infamous American imperialists who have always chosen the "easy", quick, and violent solutions to imagined problems created by their imperialist mindset. Of course the US does not want to nuke Russia. (The missile defence systems in Russia are pretty much non-existent anyway, so I doubt that is even a factor) The Ukrainians are entitled to receive nothing from the Russians. This is not about that. This is about petty revenge born out of a mind which never left kindergarten versus sensible foreign politics.

Just like the sanctions on Iraq during the nineties. Americans thought, "GRHH, Iraq bad, punch Iraq". What was the actual thought behind the sanctions? To garner American support in Iraq by robbing sick children of their medicines? Naturally, the sanctions instead turned out to be the greatest PR effort for anti-American movements in the ME in a decade. In the same fashion, Putin probably thinks right now: "Ha! What are the Ukrainians going to do now, eh? And I'll give them more of THIS if they continue to be so ****y!". The Ukrainians themselves are probably not going to think this is very funny when they can't afford to heat their houses, and they'll be very susceptible to anti-Russian propaganda.

 

All the discussion regarding RF armed forces is armchair generalissimo nonsense with the nuclear armament that's in play.

 

It doesn't matter how good they are, it only matters how good they are relative to the other forces in the region. And apart from China, they could easily win a war with anyone else if it were really necessary. Except its not and there's not going to be a war because no-one wants 7000+ nuclear warheads aimed at them.

 

Besides, all that the US is doing is posturing. They're not really going to fight for Ukraine and everyone knows it. Why would they? Its just another piece of territory in the RF NATO struggle and not a critical one at that (for the US). 

 

I'm not saying I don't lay any "blame" at the EU or the US. I haven't discussed or commented on their actions. I think you vastly misjudge the European response. People in Europe are in general very critical of Putin and his ridiculous buffoonery, but they are also sympathetic to the Russians in Crimea and critical of the Ukrainian extremists. I think in general that most EU governments have had a very balanced response to the crisis. The stupid responses come from people such as Victoria Nuland (who frankly should have been fired ages ago simply for being an incompetent moron) and Republican congressmen, who still think it's the Cold War, Russia is the big dangerous enemy and that the relation between the US and Russia is a zero-sum game where you always want the other part to have as little as possible. Essentially, the counterparts of Putin in the US. There is a stupid knee-jerk reflex among some people to oppose everything Putin does, "because it's still the Cold War, right?", but the dominant narrative is very balanced, giving first priority to the opinions of the Ukrainian citizens themselves, at least where I live.

[Rostere]

Because you are conflating peacetime and wartime economies. They are nothing alike. You can spend billions of oil dollars on advanced foreign weapons systems, and that only guarantees that you will have the prettiest military parades around. You can purchase some of the hardware, but you cannot buy a pool of experienced training officers, field experience, an integrated military and economic doctrine, effective inter-service coordination, etc. So a huge GDP is going to matter very little if all you do is buy expensive toys abroad and play the stock markets.

 

Sorry, but it's you who seem to be conflating 21st century warfare with the 20th century warfare. You're like a French officer in 1914 rambling about fencing and horsemanship skills gained in Africa. There hasn't been a significant war since WW2, but the technology has evolved exponentially. The next significant war will not be decided by methods of warfare that have been outdated for 50 years or more. The "experience" you talk of will be worth next to nothing, because there is really no "experience" that's been had recently which could be useful (the closest would perhaps be dogfights between American and export-model Soviet fighter jets during the Cold War) in preparation for 21st century warfare - nuclear warfare. The next real war will be decided by things such as this, this, this, and this. In order to win in that arena, you need technological edge and superior production capabilities in the build-up, the latter of which can be assumed has a maximum potential linearly dependent on GDP. If you don't have enough warheads, build more for your money. If you don't have enough factories, buy more factories. You'll have one nuclear sub today and 10 tomorrow. If things are suddenly looking grim, a rich, advanced country can buy military equipment in no time (US in WW2) when a country which constantly bets all the budget on a war tomorrow will find their economy lagging behind in the long run (SU in the Cold War).

 

You talk about conflating wartime and peacetime economies, but listen to this: the war has already begun. It's a war called "peace", and the war goal is to increase your wealth and productivity so you can better prepare for war later. There's not going to be a major war tomorrow. Using war capabilities to determine power in the world is therefore unrealistic. Of course, it's also not true that power is solely due to economy, but it is by far the best measure of power we have. Any realistic build-up to war would happen over several years. Especially in this nuclear age, things have to really go to hell before a real war occurs.

 

Secondly, "advanced foreign weapons systems", "buy expensive toys abroad". I never wrote that you should necessarily buy technology from abroad. Where does this assumption come from?

 

 

I'm also not accepting the leap you are making so lightly that it's "easy" to build a nuke → it's easy to build a credible strategic nuclear force, because it isn't. Delivery systems are as important as the warheads themselves, but ballistic missiles are only one part of the equation. Extensive testing is also required unless you are going with licensed designs—but nobody does that unless they are part of a major military alliance, which makes the point moot. Designing, building, storing and maintaining the readiness of different types of nuclear arms is not "easy" or cheap by any stretch of the imagination, requiring a whole industry dedicated to production and the fulfillfment very specific training needs.

 

Yes. That was also the reservation I mentioned. But this is all beside the point, really. What I argued against was that possessing a nuclear bomb made you a "great power".

 

Also - "unless they are part of a major military alliance, which makes the point moot". I'm assuming you are referring to your point?

 

 

The list of countries you list is simply not realistic; some of them such as Japan and Germany are legally bound to forsake nuclear weapons (Germany by the Two Plus Four Agreement, Japan by their post-war Constitution). Ukraine never developed nuclear weapons on their own, and seeing how they lack the ability to train submariners anymore, the suggestion that they can become a nuclear power is... interesting. South Korea is probably the only one in your list with the know-how and industrial potential to do it, but they have no reason to as that would escalate tensions with NK and they are on the long list of freeloaders off the American defense umbrella anyway. But by far the most insane of suggestions is Taiwan—an admission or proof that the ROC is close to completing a nuclear program would inevitably lead to war in the South China Sea, something that none of the major players in the area really want. Of course, this is also without getting into domestic dissent problems that may arise from pursuing nuclear ambitions.

 

Sigh. You are completely and utterly missing the point of what I was trying to say. This is looking like some very embarrassing confusion on your part.

 

Remember: I was originally saying that it doesn't matter much for your status if you actually have a nuclear weapon, as long as you are friends with someone else who has. Therefore, the fact alone that you have nuclear weapons, or nuclear submarines, or ICBMs, does not make you a "great power". Furthermore I claimed that this is neatly underscored by the great number of countries who have not built nuclear arms but who could technologically do so without much effort.

 

Now, what does this last sentence have to do with how probable it is that a nation constructs nuclear weapons right now? If I am right, it means that countries allied with or closely aligned to nuke countries will have no need to, and be very unlikely to, develop nukes of their own. ESPECIALLY, it is important to consider countries which otherwise from a technological POV would have the ability to relatively easily build their own.

 

The nuke is a defensive weapon which makes invasion infeasible because of MAD. There are no other status, prestige, or power gains to having nuclear weaponry. None. Nada. Zilch. So if you already have MAD, you don't need nukes. Now it would diminish your power if you truly were fundamentally incapable of constructing nuclear weaponry on your own, but the list of countries which could build nukes is far longer than the list of prospective "great powers", so no problem there.

 

 

Japan and Germany are legally bound to forsake nuclear weapons (Germany by the Two Plus Four Agreement, Japan by their post-war Constitution).

 

Yes. And the fact that these powerful and influential countries have signed papers telling the world they do not intend to produce nuclear arms (in exchange for implicit or explicit protection under other nations' nuclear umbrellas) perfectly underscores my point. The point of nuclear weapons is MAD. Now if they have MAD without having nuclear weapons, does nuclear weapons change their status as a great power? Answer: No. Thus it is theoretically possible for a great power to not have nuclear weapons, when it in reality functionally obviously makes no difference for their status, ESPECIALLY when they could construct nukes on a whim if they direly needed to.

 

 

Ukraine never developed nuclear weapons on their own

 

Well... Duh?

 

 

and seeing how they lack the ability to train submariners anymore, the suggestion that they can become a nuclear power is... interesting.

 

Your suggestion that Ukraine magically and forever lost the ability to train submarine crew "anymore" is... interesting.

 

 

South Korea is probably the only one in your list with the know-how and industrial potential to do it

 

Yes, because Japan and Germany clearly do not have the know-how and industrial potential to do it. Do you even think a second before you write stuff?

 

 

[south Korea is] on the long list of freeloaders off the American defense umbrella anyway.

 

Exactly. It's good that you are providing illustrations of my points in your post so that I don't have to do it. Although at this point I do wonder if you had the faintest idea about what my argument was to begin with.

 

No, in 1964, the Soviet Union was a superpower, prepared to go toe-to-toe in a nuclear slugging match with the only other superpower to an uncertain outcome. This was with an economy that was already nominally several times smaller than that of the bloc they opposed. Gajillions of dollars on paper meant little back then, as they mean little today, when trying to gauge the importance of countries relative to one another. And this is also without accounting for the problem of increasing financialization of Western economies. You say that economic reasons GDP shows that Russia is no longer to be considered a great power—I say this approach paints an incomplete picture, provided concrete examples of this, and am explaining why making judgments based on that picture is foolhardy.

 

Why do you think the SU collapsed in the end? "Gajillions of dollars on paper" meant everything back then, specifically it meant the end for the SU as it imploded while trying to keep even pace with the US.

 

Not only do I claim that Russia is not a very powerful because of economic reasons, I also claim that back in the days the SU were powerful because of these economic reasons. SU had the second largest GDP, which is to say the second largest production potential in the world, thus they were the second most powerful country.

 

I'm also not too convinced of the usefulness of trying to determine whether one country or another presently meets an arbitrary set of criteria to be included in one arbitrary category or another, especially when those categories are inherited from the study of history, a discipline that is based on retrospect and whose goal is not at all to make assessments of the present or predictions for the future. I'm fairly certain that to Eastern Europe, the power of Russia is pretty great at the moment, and this perspective is probably shared by many in Western Europe too. So for the purposes of this discussion, does it really matter if a hundred years from now, historians will place 2014 Russia right up there with 1914 Britain, 1556 Spain, or 360 Sassanid Empire or not?

 

You should frequent Wikipedia more often and read more about history. It would do you good with a more learned perspective. Meanwhile, other forum members can collect especially outrageous and embarrassing posts to show for your future self.

[Rostere]

 

That's a very fuzzy and too vague definition of what a great power is. And as I've said earlier, just because you try to block other people's efforts (which makes you look important) you are not automatically important. If France or Britain had been as obstinate as Russia, they could also have averted the Syria intervention. Just because the UK and France are allies of the US, they don't get to demonstrate their "power" as often. This is not to be interpreted as a weakness. In fact, the more friends you've got, the stronger you are.

Well, that is one of the fuzziest definitions of a Great Power I've ever seen. By that measure dear little New Zealand is a Great Power, we're friends with everyone. But no, it's a great POWER, not a 'great friend'. It's never ever been a niceness competition, furthest thing from it. Of course, those in the Great Power itself or in their sphere usually think that their term as such is Different and they've got to their position using sweet reason, kindness and generosity. May happen some time in the future, but it's never happened any time in the past or present.

 

You misunderstand my words intentionally. I have not given my definition of a "great power" in the quoted section. I have on the other hand done so further above, where I wrote that I consider the five largest economies "great powers".

 

I know you're a logical and intelligent person. I'm sure you understand as well as I that if I write "the more friends you've got, the stronger you are", that does not mean that if you are maximally friendly (if we presume such a concept exists) with every other nation, you are the most powerful nation, or a "great power". Only that you are better off than you would have been otherwise.

 

Er, really? The same banks that almost to a man had to be bailed out massively or would have gone bankrupt en masse? All this actually does is illustrate exactly how fragile and recursive the west's economic 'might' really is- the US relies on banks for credit, the same banks that rely on the US for credit and free money to remain solvent. But I'm sure that ain't a house of cards- any more than Russia relying on the most crucial resource mankind currently has for most of her economy, at least.

 

Haha. But they didn't all go bankrupt, now did they? It seems you're on the threshold of understanding how the system works. But you seem confused over who is the dog, and who is the tail. Who benefits the most from the current system? Those are in effect the guarantors of the purchasing power of the dollar, they will likely do everything in their power to keep the system in place, not crash it to the ground and lose it all. In the US, current arrangements favour the really big banks. In Russia - well, read for yourself.

 

Also, you can't directly compare a banking system to an economy. Those are two different things. The US is not "relying" on their central banking system in the same (or even in a comparable) way that Russia relies on petroleum products.

 

But sure, we can discuss central banking systems, more specifically the American and Russian one, and what makes a central banking system a "house of cards". I'll reply to this once but if you feel like discussing this further you might want to start a new thread.

 

The most crucial point is that the worth of a currency is measured by the ability of the issuer to keep down future inflation. This really just means that you're more inclined to accept payment in a currency which other people will later accept as payment (with reasonable inflation adjustments/exchange rates) in the future (if we have to take into account people not accepting the currency at all, that is just infinitely high inflation mathematically speaking). Artificially pegging the value of a currency to a commodity (such as gold) by using a central bank as a guarantor for exchanging the currency for the commodity (at a variable or a fixed rate) is one way to handle inflation. This was how things were typically done in the early part of the 20th century. I'll refrain from discussing the problems with these older systems here, if they are not evident. To sum things up so far, if you accuse the US of being "recursive" in this regard, Russia is no better.

 

You will note that the Russian central banking system is more centralized, and more under the control of the government than the US one, although neither system can be truly said to be 100% private or public. My guess is that you accuse the US system of being broken because the banks are able to make a profit from the current system, off the government and by extension the tax payer, seemingly for no reason at all. Please don't conflate that with shaky "economic might" or purchasing power of the dollar! The system might have drawbacks in one aspect, but working perfectly and as intended in other ways.

 

Even if the government will not exchange your dollars for gold, you will always be able to buy shares in American stock markets for your dollars, at market rates. As long as you know that 1) You can always buy good stuff for your dollars (US shares, oil and (generally, because people in the US tend to accept dollars as payment) US-made products) 2) The central banking system will not run amok and inflate your dollars, all is good. Now if there is one lesson to be learned from economics, it's that private central banking systems are better at handling inflation than state-run ones. I'll not go into that further in this thread since it's a BIG subject and my POV is the general consensus anyway, but start here if you want to inform yourself.

 

Now back to Russia. What can you always buy for rubles? Russian shares on the Moscow stock market. Perhaps Russian gas in the future, if Putin should decide to sell it in rubles instead of dollars. Compare inflation here and here (with starting point of 2000 chosen to align with the start of Putin's presidency). Now think about this: You are a company which buys commodity X. You can buy commodity X for either rubles or dollars (at the exact same price if we take into account exchange rates). Which currency do you want in your bank account - the one which loses approximately 1,5% in value each year, or the one which loses approximately 6% in value each year? Hint: the answer is the dollar. The ruble will need firstly and most importantly a lower inflation forecast and after that exclusivity on more commodities to challenge the dollar.

 

The only thing you're right about is the sub-optimal state of the American government's economy. The big banks will bleed the government of every last dollar they can get, but this will not have any serious adverse effect for US global economic power until it should destroy the long-term outlooks for American stock markets because of resulting increased taxes. Let's see if American companies are footing a heavy bill right now... Right, they don't. Now, of course the current system nibbles away at the American federal budget, but that is how capitalism works. Until there is a significant tax hangover, we know there is no danger and we can conclude the banks are playing on the safe side, which they in the long-term have all economic incentive in the US to do.

[Malcador]

It'll be funny in a 'real' (not like the thousands dying in these police actions and flashpoints matter) war to see how quickly each side runs out of ammunition. Think Israel ran into supply problems in 2006, US did as well in Iraq.

[213374U]

Sorry, but it's you who seem to be conflating 21st century warfare with the 20th century warfare. You're like a French officer in 1914 rambling about fencing and horsemanship skills gained in Africa. There hasn't been a significant war since WW2, but the technology has evolved exponentially. The next significant war will not be decided by methods of warfare that have been outdated for 50 years or more. The "experience" you talk of will be worth next to nothing, because there is really no "experience" that's been had recently which could be useful (the closest would perhaps be dogfights between American and export-model Soviet fighter jets during the Cold War) in preparation for 21st century warfare - nuclear warfare. The next real war will be decided by things such as this, this, this, and this.

LOL

 

I like your Saudi Arabia-approach to modern warfare. It worked great for Iraq. "Buy moar guns, bigger tanks, fancier jets". Or build them under license. Only that doesn't work outside of Command & Conquer. Putting together, supplying and deploying a modern fighting force is not something you can simply purchase overnight, it is a focused effort that takes years, if not decades, for a developed economy. It involves multi-year training for literally hundreds of thousands of people, massive investment in the form of education, appropriation, and most of all, it requires the political will to keep the pressure when people figure they'd rather have the roads fixed, the taxes lowered or what have you.

 

As for your prediction about what will decide the next "real" war (nice preemptive goal post shifting btw), I'm simply going to say [citation needed].

 

 

In order to win in that arena, you need technological edge and superior production capabilities in the build-up, the latter of which can be assumed has a maximum potential linearly dependent on GDP. If you don't have enough warheads, build more for your money. If you don't have enough factories, buy more factories. You'll have one nuclear sub today and 10 tomorrow. If things are suddenly looking grim, a rich, advanced country can buy military equipment in no time (US in WW2) when a country which constantly bets all the budget on a war tomorrow will find their economy lagging behind in the long run (SU in the Cold War).

Again, gross simplification and more citations needed. The idea that you just "buy more warheads" is laughable enough, but buying more factories? You cannot do that even in most grand strategy games—are you really suggesting that's a viable course of action IRL? Who is going to put those factories together? What machinery is going to be used to manufacture the tools? We are talking wartime, remember? In wartime trade just doesn't flow freely, demand for essential materials and skills is extreme and now your bloated, financialized make-believe economy can only readily produce paper money. But no matter, because you can keep mashing the "buy missiles" button and you'll win in the end! Right?

 

Also, it took the US from 1940 to 1942 to overtake the Soviet Union in tank production in WWII with an economy that was more than twice the size. But yeah, you can totally buy more military equipment in no time. If you are the single largest heavy industry-based economy in the world. And your production centers are safely away from the front lines. And you don't face material shortages. And...

 

 

You talk about conflating wartime and peacetime economies, but listen to this: the war has already begun. It's a war called "peace", and the war goal is to increase your wealth and productivity so you can better prepare for war later. There's not going to be a major war tomorrow. Using war capabilities to determine power in the world is therefore unrealistic. Of course, it's also not true that power is solely due to economy, but it is by far the best measure of power we have. Any realistic build-up to war would happen over several years. Especially in this nuclear age, things have to really go to hell before a real war occurs.

Yes, because history shows that crises are really easy to foresee, and the enemy is going to wait for you to have fully mobilized the economy and built as many ICBMs and stealth strategic bombers as you could possibly need to nuke them back to the stone age. If you ask nicely, they may even let you finish deploying that shiny missile shield!

Please don't bother with the straw men. I never said military power is the way to measure power in the world. But it is a factor, and has always been. When forced to choose between historical correlation between military might and influence and your theory that GDP is the end all be all to determine weight in the international arena, I'm going with the established wisdom. Especially since apparently you live in Starcraft universe.

 

 

Secondly, "advanced foreign weapons systems", "buy expensive toys abroad". I never wrote that you should necessarily buy technology from abroad. Where does this assumption come from?

Ah yes, of course. It's after all incredibly easy, quick and cheap to design and build complex systems such as the Typhoon and the Leopard. That's why everyone does it. All the time.

 

 

What I argued against was that possessing a nuclear bomb made you a "great power".

Only (hello?) we are discussing Russia, in case you forgot. Russia doesn't have "a" nuclear bomb. They have several thousand warheads and the ability to deliver them anywhere in the world in short notice. You then went off on a tangent about how having "a" nuke doesn't really change the game, but that's a point that nobody made. Strawman.

 

 

Also - "unless they are part of a major military alliance, which makes the point moot". I'm assuming you are referring to your point?

No, the one that went right over your head, see it yet? I'll break it down for you, even though I already did in the post you quoted. The point is moot because you don't build your own nuclear weapons from scratch if you already are a member of a major alliance with members that already have strategic arsenals in place. But this, in turn puts you in a position where you either follow the lead of those countries, or risk being left without a nuclear retaliation capability. This is most definitely not the mark of a great power in this day and age.

 

 

Remember: I was originally saying that it doesn't matter much for your status if you actually have a nuclear weapon, as long as you are friends with someone else who has. Therefore, the fact alone that you have nuclear weapons, or nuclear submarines, or ICBMs, does not make you a "great power". Furthermore I claimed that this is neatly underscored by the great number of countries who have not built nuclear arms but who could technologically do so without much effort.

Now, what does this last sentence have to do with how probable it is that a nation constructs nuclear weapons right now? If I am right, it means that countries allied with or closely aligned to nuke countries will have no need to, and be very unlikely to, develop nukes of their own. ESPECIALLY, it is important to consider countries which otherwise from a technological POV would have the ability to relatively easily build their own.

Because you are building your whole argument from the basis that GDP is all that matters, and assuming that everyone else agrees—therefore so long as you can be relatively sure that nobody is going to rain down nukes on you first, you are a great power! But this is not a fact, it's simply a thesis of yours. This reasoning doesn't apply in the case that you want to pursue an independent international agenda that may conflict with that of someone else's. If you are an international yes-man, sure. Again, being a satellite state as far as foreign policy is concerned is simply incompatible with the status of great power.

 

Basically you are using your own argument that only GDP matters as proof that countries with large GDPs could be great powers if they put a large fraction of their nominal economic output towards military spending, and therefore any other player with a lower relative GDP cannot be a great power... as its GDP shows. It's a poignant blend of circular logic and unsupported premises, but fallacious all the same.

[Valsuelm]

It'll be funny in a 'real' (not like the thousands dying in these police actions and flashpoints matter) war to see how quickly each side runs out of ammunition. Think Israel ran into supply problems in 2006, US did as well in Iraq.

 

Don't think there'd be anything funny about it.

 

We'd run out of people before we ran out of ammunition.