Does Germany Need the Bomb?

[spmetla]

It could be on the table, this sort of thing. It's something within the space of policy debate at least. You could warn Putin that it's going to happen pursuant to some broader negotiations, if you know you can commit to the investment. Then you do it, when Putin doesn't respond favorably, and now you have another card to play, or take away in the give and take of negotiations. From there you can demonstrate good will and flexibility in a long game, and it could go toward defusing some of Putin's worse incentives without making permanent diplomatic or military decisions. All of this is potentially hypothetical, prior to taking politics into consideration. Regardless, the big picture is relations with Russia should not be oriented from a defense/military perspective because it has the least long-term relevance, and hammers don't work well with screws.

Exactly, it's one of the reasons I though Obama 'weak' in response to the Crimean invasion. Instead of using it as a lever to reinvigorate collective European defense and gain bargaining chips by using the invasion as a reason to reverse the draw down in Germany and perhaps restart the ballistic missile defense plans in Eastern Europe. Not to mention it could have be used to show the vulnerability of Western Europe to Russian energy supplies and sell more US natural gas. The sanctions hurt Russia but having another 'frozen conflict' in Eastern Europe is fine for Russia but terrible for Ukraine. Crimea will remain Russian unless someone is willing to fight Russia for it and even I think that a terrible stupid idea when Ukraine scarcely tried to retain it.

Well, Putin still has a cost-benefit deliberation.

Of course, but we need to think what does he consider a benefit? It's surely not just economic or the sanctions would have worked. He has already made his mark on history by the rebirth of Russia's relevance in the world post USSR collapse. He has stopped the Eastward spread of NATO to countries like Georgia or Ukraine. He seemingly has a puppet or at least an admirer as the POTUS who is doing his apparent best to break up NATO and the EU. His moves haven't been good for the Russian economy but from the diplomatic and military views they have been beneficial to him.
In the possible scenario that one day Russia tanks roll into Riga in order to protect Russian citizens from 'fascist nazi loving Latvians' what would NATO do? https://www.haaretz.com/world-news/e...tvia-1.5912476
With the disorder in the West with Trump, Brexit and African and Muslim migrants crisis it is very possible that nothing is done. More sanctions, more fist shaking but the possibility that NATO would not go to war to defend one of its smallest allies if the threat is an actual world power and thereby be the end of NATO as a credible deterrence.

Our biggest weakness domestically is our biggest strength in foreign affairs.

Yet sadly so many of our citizens don't care about our foreign affairs which is why the pull of isolationism has a very good chance of winning out.

[Fragony]

Domestic weakness as a strength is an interesting way of looking at things, not being sarcastic it reallly is

[Gilrandir]

Crimea will remain Russian unless someone is willing to fight Russia for it and even I think that a terrible stupid idea when Ukraine scarcely tried to retain it.

It scarecely tried because it was unable to.

[Fragony]

Kinda odd that 'we' are oblivious to it, no small thing.

[spmetla]

It scarecely tried because it was unable to.

I know it couldn't, it was such a surprise invasion and in a way no one expected that of course Ukraine couldn't fend it off, especially with the political turmoil it was in. Ukrainian officers switch sides, some bases were stormed by unarmed 'civilians' with armed paramilitaries following and then disarming the Ukrainian soldiers. The confusion created no real orders on what to do to low level leaders and then those leaders were affected by signals jamming making any unity of action difficult to say the least. It was a shocking take over which has caused many Eastern European nations with ethnic russians in their armed forces to look more into their loyalties, the issuing of holdout orders in places so that soldiers with no chain of command have at least some guiding principle.
My point was more that such a 'fait accompli' invasion by a great power like Russia makes reversing such an action extremely difficult.

Russian tanks in Riga: if it happens, it will be in order to fulfill a need - such as intense domestic pressure to invade (unlikely), or a gambit to deal a death blow to the American order/transatlantic alliance (many harmful knock-ons for Russia). Western decline would have to be much further along for such a thing to slip below risk thresholds, or something else dire, in which case we're in no position to be pondering military solutions anymore

What if that need is simply to demonstrate NATO as an empty shell east of Poland? Russia didn't want to lose its Sevastapol naval base to NATO. In the Baltic it's only all season port that doesn't freeze in winter (less frequently now though thanks to global warming)is in Kaliningrad Oblast which is now a Russian 'island' in a sea of NATO. Getting the baltic states out of NATO and back into the Russia sphere through some sort of 'Finlandization' is probably a desired goal of Russia but who knows what the timeline is. If the conditions are 'right' then I imagine they'd implement such an action without waiting for domestic clamor for such an action. Also the acquisition of territory is generally far more permanent than any threat of sanctions which always water down over time.

I agree that he would probably prefer to buy such a government but nothing would undo NATO so quickly and dramatically as rapid invasion of any of the Baltic States with only impotent responses from NATO. It's less of a Fulda Gap scenario and more like a Falklands War scenario, failure to act would essentially unravel what little remained of the British 'empire' (think Hong Kong in the 80s). I also agree the west would need to decline a bit more but looking at the Trump effect and the distractions of Brexit and migrant crises I personally think that decline is speeding along quite quickly.
Our reaction if he essentially 'bought' a government would probably be pretty muted. I think Putin has bought Erdogan or at least got him on side. We've got sanctions on Turkey over a pastor, we are freezing their participation in the F-35 program because the Turks are buying Russian air defense systems, and Erdogan still says that the US tried to overthrow him through a coup and Fethullah Gulen somehow. Turkey is a vital nation to NATO and the US, I don't think we'd react more strongly in the case of Latvia, Estonia, or Lithuania which probably don't even register as countries to most Americans.
If the Russia achieves recognition of its annexation of Crimea and some sort of semi-autonomous status for eastern Ukraine it would probably make the Baltic States that much more worried about Western Betrayal and create domestic upheaval which could produce very anti-Russia policies that might require ethnic Russians to be protected by the motherland.

Guess I turn all threads into nato threads.....

[Gilrandir]

I know it couldn't, it was such a surprise invasion and in a way no one expected that of course Ukraine couldn't fend it off, especially with the political turmoil it was in. Ukrainian officers switch sides, some bases were stormed by unarmed 'civilians' with armed paramilitaries following and then disarming the Ukrainian soldiers. The confusion created no real orders on what to do to low level leaders and then those leaders were affected by signals jamming making any unity of action difficult to say the least. It was a shocking take over which has caused many Eastern European nations with ethnic russians in their armed forces to look more into their loyalties, the issuing of holdout orders in places so that soldiers with no chain of command have at least some guiding principle.
My point was more that such a 'fait accompli' invasion by a great power like Russia makes reversing such an action extremely difficult.

You don't seem to know (or didn't mention) two main factors why Ukraine didn't put up a fight for Crimea and in Crimea.
1. The state the army was in. Thanks to previous presidents (especially Yanukovych) the army was neglected and almost everything that was left after the demise of the USSR was sold out (if it was of any worth) or left to rot. The authorities just didn't see any sense in keeping and financing the army since there was ostensibly no one to fight against. Russia was NEVER deemed to ever become an enemy. The number of armed forces was also at a token level. All in all they say that when the annexation staretd Ukraine could filed around 5 000 soldiers who knew how to fight and had at least something passable to fight with.
2. The principles of forming army units in the 2014 Ukraine. The majority of units billeted somewhere consisted of local inhabitants. Thus Crimean forces were 70-80% locals, most of whom had families and relatives living close by. Consequently, they were the easiest to sway towards Russia and became turncoats. Those who were eventually withdrawn to continental Ukaine and offered as least non-violent resistence were not locals.

[Montmorency]

Our reaction if he essentially 'bought' a government would probably be pretty muted. I think Putin has bought Erdogan or at least got him on side. We've got sanctions on Turkey over a pastor, we are freezing their participation in the F-35 program because the Turks are buying Russian air defense systems, and Erdogan still says that the US tried to overthrow him through a coup and Fethullah Gulen somehow. Turkey is a vital nation to NATO and the US, I don't think we'd react more strongly in the case of Latvia, Estonia, or Lithuania which probably don't even register as countries to most Americans.
If the Russia achieves recognition of its annexation of Crimea and some sort of semi-autonomous status for eastern Ukraine it would probably make the Baltic States that much more worried about Western Betrayal and create domestic upheaval which could produce very anti-Russia policies that might require ethnic Russians to be protected by the motherland.

Guess I turn all threads into nato threads.....

Like I was saying in the Turkey thread, if you view Turkey (Erdogan) as going its own way then it's not that Putin controls Erdogan or has bought him, but that for the moment they can be fellow-travelers in renegadism. Turkey's long-term goal could still be to expunge Russian and Iranian influence from the East Med and replace it with its own.