frostygrin t1_j6ntj3k wrote on January 31, 2023 at 5:26 PM

Reply to comment by Ramboxious in Brazil's Lula cold-shoulders Germany's Scholz on Ukraine support by Available_Hamster_44

> They can discuss a whole bunch of different things once Russian troops leave Ukraine.

Again, what would they be, and why wouldn't Zelensky just say no to everything? Why would Putin willingly give up his leverage for nothing?

> The answer is obviously yes, an attack from Ukraine would trigger MAD. Why do you think NATO is not sending troops to Ukraine right now?

I don't think there's just one reason. It can quickly become an unpopular quagmire, for example. And it's not actually clear that Russia would use nukes at the first sight of NATO troops in Ukraine. Fundamentally that was my point about Cuban missile crisis. The point wasn't that the situation is exactly the same. The point was that MAD doesn't give you peace of mind. Or any kind of certainty.

Ramboxious t1_j6nvmof wrote on January 31, 2023 at 5:39 PM

>Again, what would they be, and why wouldn't Zelensky just say no to everything? Why would Putin willingly give up his leverage for nothing?

The point is that both parties set up pre-conditions for diplomatic negotiations, which the other party is not willing to meet, hence the military conflict. However, Russia, as the aggressor, is the only party that wants to continue the conflict, and has no justifiable reason to be in the conflict, so it is their responsibility to end the war if they want to negotiate.

Ukraine can't do that if they want to maintain their sovereignty, Russia can do that while maintaining their sovereignty.

>It can quickly become an unpopular quagmire, for example.

How would it be an unpopular quagmire? Support for Ukraine is at an all time high, and vice versa for Russia, especially in Europe. NATO troops in Ukraine would help out a great deal in kicking out Russians out of Ukraine, judging by the pace that Ukrainians were able to retrieve territory.

The reason that NATO troops aren't in Ukraine is that they don't want to potentially trigger MAD, that's it.

>The point was that MAD doesn't give you peace of mind. Or any kind of certainty.

Exactly, that's why NATO doesn't want to attack Russia, because they don't want to risk the chance of triggering MAD.

frostygrin t1_j6o0s1l wrote on January 31, 2023 at 6:10 PM

> Ukraine can't do that if they want to maintain their sovereignty, Russia can do that while maintaining their sovereignty.

Well, they aren't equally situated in the situation that you're trying to resolve. Apples and oranges. You're mixing up what's happening and what you find justifiable. If your plan is to keep telling Putin to end the war - it doesn't seem very productive.

> How would it be an unpopular quagmire?

The way it is now, Ukraine is getting support without Americans and allies suffering casualties or spending too much. Ukraine is basically getting surplus equipment. Escalating that can make things less popular, and make the war seem more necessary from the Russian perspective.

> The reason that NATO troops aren't in Ukraine is that they don't want to potentially trigger MAD, that's it.

So why are they supporting Ukraine at all then? Did anyone told them that there's zero risk of triggering MAD? They probably made a calculation that the risk is low enough. So they can keep escalating things little by little.

Ramboxious t1_j6oivkz wrote on January 31, 2023 at 8:01 PM

>You're mixing up what's happening and what you find justifiable.

The issue is that you are the one mixing things up. Your presenting Ukraine and Russia as equally being able to stop the war. But stopping the war for Ukraine would mean losing their sovereignty, while stopping the war for Russia would have no impact on their sovereignty.

>If your plan is to keep telling Putin to end the war - it doesn't seem very productive.

We can keep telling Putin that while we send military aid to Ukraine and sanctioning Russia, if Ukraine keeps being successful then Putin is more likely to listen.

>Escalating that can make things less popular, and make the war seem more necessary from the Russian perspective.

Support for sending troops to Ukraine was around 35-40% at the start of the war. It seems pretty obvious that main reason NATO troops aren't in Ukraine are due to Russia's nuclear weapons (as noted here and here).

Doesn't this also show Putin that NATO doesn't want to attack Russia, since this would be the perfect opportunity to perform such an attack?

>They probably made a calculation that the risk is low enough.

You hit the nail on the head. The risk of conflict escalation is low when sending aid, because NATO is not directly involved. Sending troops to Ukraine would massively escalate the conflict, as pointed out by the Biden admin.