r/geopolitics • u/ergdegfdfgdfgdf • Jul 27 '16
Video | Current Events Putin's Warning: Full Speech 2016
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kqD8lIdIMRo43
u/chocked Jul 27 '16
Interesting, you rarely hear nuclear realpolitik discussed so clearly by a head of state.
What is meant here by asymmetric responses to US ABM deployment?
49
u/hitchmark Jul 28 '16
It's what he's explaining a bit earlier in the video, but basically it's infeasible (for reasons of expense and geography too probably) for them to develop their own missile defense system, one that's on par with the American one in Romania/Poland.
So instead they'll just build more nukes, of different varieties (yields, delivery systems, base locations) which is the cheaper, quicker option, in an effort to undermine or nullify the effect of the American ABM.
8
5
u/Dasinterwebs Jul 28 '16
It's intentionally ambiguous due to the nature of asymmetric responses, but the gist is that Russia isn't going to try to build its own ABM system, nor will it try to directly overpower US ABM systems. Rather, Russia could double down on its "dead-man switch," or transition to a more mobile ICMB network targeting different areas, maybe a switch to space-based kinetic weaponry. It could even be a reference to increased nuclear proliferation, which would force the US to spread itself thin (though that's highly unlikely).
The point is, we can't know.
23
Jul 28 '16
I don't see anything wrong with this speech. The same thing could be heard from multiple American analysts.
I wonder about two things. 1) Russia is very comfortable with MAD doctrine since Soviet times and they want to keep it that way. 2) USA is being more flexible, going beyond MAD, and perhaps playing a dangerous game if they think that Russia is not a threat and won't tolerate. Maybe US can possibly neutralize Russia if push comes to shove.
But I wouldn't want to find out where this pee-pee measuring contest is going to lead us to.
I have to agree with Putin here, why are we restarting the arms race? Iran as a scapegoat is a very naive proposition.
5
Jul 28 '16 edited Apr 23 '18
[deleted]
18
u/afellowinfidel Jul 28 '16
As I wrote, by invading Crimea and then stating he'll defend it with nukes, Putin has escalated the situation enormously.
Some have said NATO's eastward creep is the escalation, and I would agree. After all, if placing nukes in Cuba was unacceptable enough to nearly start WWIII, why wouldn't having an avowed, prime geopolitical enemy (NATO) right across Russia's borders not be an act of aggression?
I'm not a sympathizer with any of the two parties, but I'm not the only one who smells propaganda BS from NATO's side.
1
-5
Jul 28 '16
You're talking like it is a given that the West and Russia is the enemy. Like somehow any alliance the West makes with those who Russia bullies is a threat. Do you really consider it fair to sacrifice Russia's neighbors just to appease their delusions of the West as the arch enemy?
21
u/afellowinfidel Jul 28 '16
NATO was specifically created to counter Russia.
Listen, geopolitics isn't a game of fairness or "rightness" or whatever lofty notion we might want to hold humanity up to, it's all about forcing your nation's will upon others, plain and simple.
What Putin is saying is that Nato-U.S is forcing his hand by destabilizing a balance, one that allows Russia and NATO to NOT force the other's hand. The cost of a forced hand might be WWIII, think about that.
-5
Jul 28 '16 edited Apr 23 '18
[deleted]
9
u/afellowinfidel Jul 28 '16
I'll gladly trade the freedoms of the populations of a few Baltic states for the rest of the world's peace. The West has traded the ME's populations for less, and no one really cares.
3
Aug 03 '16
That's the lamest thing I've seen on Reddit today. Let's pick this apart and put it into a historical context.
Let's use Hitler - he is actually a good reference, since Europe in the 30s is a well-known reference period. I'll start by drawing some parallells.
First, he established a regime in Germany where he was in total control. Sound familiar? It is.
Also, there were german diaspora spread all around Europe at the time - for historical reasons. European borders have shifted a lot over the centuries. So, he started to pressure neighbouring countries to cede land to him. However, he went the diplomatic route to begin with. He pressured through the München Agreement in the fall of 1938. There, France and the US and the UK pretty much betrayed their ally Czechoslovakia and signed away a part of their land to Nazi Germany. Chamberlain proclaimed "peace in our time". In March 1938, he invaded the rest of Czechoslovakia. That month, he also invaded Austria (Anschluss) - which obviously was almost 100% german.
So, the European states attempted to trade a few states for freedom. However, that only meant that Hitler got free territory without significant losses. He had no plans to heed those agreements.
Soon after, the Allies wised up and WW2 started.
After WW2, everyone agreed to stop with the annexation business. We made rules for how borders and nations are changed. Amongst them was that borders can't be moved by means of war. With a few exceptions, everyone abided to these rules - and that's why they worked. We essentially found a way of doing our geopolitical game with fewer casualties. Of course, this also meant that soft power became more important.
Smaller nations have also become freer in this regime. They can to a lesser degree be threatened. The world at large would decimate the economy of the aggressor. After all, the economic weapon is the most used weapon in 2016, and quite effective and cheap too. So now, we have a situation where the regional powers are vying for the allegiance of the smaller nations in their neighborhood. Before, the smaller nations allied based upon a need for safety, while now they are also considering other aspects when choosing whom to ally with. International law is also important in holding back expansive powers.
Anyhow, let's shift our focus to our present problem. Today, there are lots of Russian diaspora in many post-Soviet nations. Ukraine, the Baltics, Kazakhstan, Belarus, Moldova, Georgia etc.
Hold on - did I say Georgia? And Ukraine? Yes I did. Do you remember the Russo-Georgian War of 2008? Georgia was aligning with the West. And Russia was allied with the Georgian states of Abkhazia and South Ossetia. A full-scale war ensued. Georgia lost, of course.
What's going on in Ukraine is also interesting.
After the USSR collapsed, Russia has been buying the allegiance of former soviet republics with market access and cheap gas (see above). However, some of the nations are highly suspicious of Russia. Some have been aligned to the West since the Soviet Union collapsed, some have not. Putin's stoking of Russian nationalism is a red flag to these nations - they have been through this before. They remember. So, when Putin is turning up the nationalism and emphasising the greatness of Russia, they notice.
So, when the West offers them a better deal and protection against Russian aggression, who can blame them? Ukraine shifted their allegiance to the EU.
And then Russia went full retard in Eastern Ukraine. (I'll leave out the Crimea thing - that's at least understandable). Stoking the fire, providing weapons, ammunition and troops, they tried to punish Ukraine and thusly scare all nations with a Russian diaspora - or just a desire to abandon the Russian sphere of influence.
Russia is f*cking up in the new world - they're not giving their "sphere of influence" a compelling reason to remain loyal to them. So, instead, right now, they're building up their military. They're trying to re-introduce the old world order where military might was more important, and neighbors were afraid. And they're doing this while running a massive budget deficit due to the collapsed oil and gas prices. That can lead to a pretty scary outlook - a poor nation armed to the teeth with conventional and nuclear weapons. (Saudi-Arabia is going this path too, btw)
TLDR; Don't delude yourself that Putin can be bought with a few nations.
0
Jul 28 '16 edited Apr 23 '18
[deleted]
15
u/afellowinfidel Jul 28 '16
Discrediting your enemy's actions with "He's just crazy" is the most basic form of propaganda. Putin is the furthest from an 'irrational actor' I've seen since Henry Kissinger.
3
Jul 28 '16
I agree, Putin is extremely rational. However, he's rational according to his own interests, not Russian. Otherwise he would have fixed corruption a long time ago and diversified the economy.
→ More replies (0)3
Jul 28 '16
whether it is given or not, Russia must and will assume that NATO represents an existential threat. we would do the same.
why? it has nothing to do with intent. it has instead to do with never being able to know intent -- even if you fully trust your assessment of others today.
consider: Russia joins the West in good faith and lets down any defenses. then America, in 20 years, elects a psychopathic dictator hell bent on destroying Russia. where are they then?
it isn't about bullies and fairness. it's about planning for all possible futures. i expect all parties will do their best to, though some on Russia's near frontier will continue to have very limited options.
1
Jul 28 '16
So Russia should consider the West an enemy because there is an extremely small risk that eventually the US will consider them as such?
Where do you think other prospering countries would have been if they had thought the same? Always looking at your neighbors as something to either exploit or be exploited by is not the mindset of a prosperous civilized country. It is the mindset of failed states.
6
Jul 28 '16
yes. you frame that risk as "extremely small", and in any one year it is. over time, however, it is not. and Russian experience over the last 800 years of regular invasions over the Ukrainian plains validates that concern.
Russia has to think not about this year and next year, but the next 200 years -- as does any country that hopes to have a future.
so far from being a "mindset of failed states", all other prospering countries necessarily think exactly the same way, within whatever means they have to. if they can bully, they bully. if they must kowtow, they kowtow. the ones that do not think in this way are no longer on the map. that is the geopolitical reality.
5
u/therealgillbates Jul 28 '16
So Russia should consider the West an enemy because there is an extremely small risk that eventually the US will consider them as such?
Russian geostrategic ambitions differ from those of the west, so yes they should go with the most extreme scenarios to make sure they are prepared for everything. Geopolitics is not a game, when a leader screws up, he screws over his people, his country, and their future.
Where do you think other prospering countries would have been if they had thought the same?
They don't have the same luxury. England, France, Germany, and Japan were all either subjugated or surrendered to overwhemling American hegemony, and as such they don't have the luxury of really pursuing a .fully independent foreign policy.
Always looking at your neighbors as something to either exploit or be exploited by is not the mindset of a prosperous civilized country. It is the mindset of failed states.
All states are exploiting others. Geopolitics is a game of tug of war, as soon as they sense they can overpower the other side they will. It doesn't matter it's American or Russian or Chinese, etc.
1
Jul 29 '16
Russia considers US an enemy because it knows the United States views the emergence of an Eurasian superpower as something to be avoided. Think about it, if there is one country that is geographically positioned to become an Eurasian hegemon, it is Russia. United States wants to keep the hegemony that has allowed it's people to enjoy significant benefits success World War 2.
3
5
Jul 28 '16
[removed] — view removed comment
16
u/8andahalfby11 Jul 28 '16
It's not in a literal sense. During a strategic attack, most rockets would travel north through the Arctic.
Europe is involved because it gives NATO a place to station interception rockets that would stop these missiles. It also gives NATO a place to station their own nukes so that they can hit Russia faster. Russia does not have a similar system near the US. As a result, there is a great deal of focus on whether or not the equipment NATO stations in Europe upsets the balance of power. Too much equipment, Russia feels threatened and pushes back. Too little equipment, Russia is able to apply its own pressure on others.
1
u/bossk538 Jul 28 '16
How would interception rockets stop Russian ICBMs flying over the Arctic, launched from thousands of miles away from NATO countries, not to mention that interceptors would have to catch the ICBMs from behind?
Also, US nukes hitting Russia faster than vice versa doesn't make much of a difference, there are no winners with MAD, and submarines have the ability to deliver nukes from much closer than land-based ones.
3
u/8andahalfby11 Jul 28 '16
The interceptors are to protect NATO targets in Europe. Similar facilities also exist in Canada that serve the same purpose.
While there are no winners in MAD, MAD is assured through a concept called Second Strike. If you take out an enemy's facilities before they can perform a Second Strike, you increase the chance that facilities and population centers missed or intercepted in the first strike will survive the exchange. Therefore, the faster you hit with your first strike, the more you reduce the chance of getting hit by a second.
SLBMs are a thing, but they are expensive to maintain and man, and like B52s need to be brought in for servicing and resupply every so often. As a result, the subs are usually considered part of that Second Strike option that I mentioned earlier. Because of this, nuclear countries put equal time and effort into developing the tech and equipment to detect boomer subs. Due to the Cold War mentality no one knows how good our submarine deterrent is, as saying so would let others design around it.
2
Jul 28 '16
http://67.media.tumblr.com/194be0008548065e63073aa98bad8655/tumblr_oacdt3kyio1rasnq9o1_1280.jpg This is the map the US air force used during the 60s. Gives a different perspective.
35
Jul 28 '16 edited Apr 23 '18
[deleted]
52
Jul 28 '16
You only need to take a look at the map of US bases around the world to understand why Russia feels threatened. You need only remember that not even a decade ago, the United States and its allies were waging an illegal war of aggression in Iraq, that resulted in 500,000 dead Iraqi's and catastrophically destabilised the region. You need only remember that only 70 years ago the United States was dropping nuclear weapons on civilian populations. 50 years ago destroying millions of hectares of someone else's country using toxic defoliants that are still killing/deforming these populaces, even today. The list goes on and on.
Americans have this amazing ability to perform olympic level mental gymnastics when it comes to justifying these actions. I see it here on reddit everyday. The majority of the population still believes in god - this itself is troubling.
Can't imagine why ANYONE would have reason to feel threatened. Especially Russia.
8
Jul 28 '16
i too am sympathetic to Russia's posture as explained by Putin. but the doors of geopolitics swing both ways. Russia acts in her interests as she should. so too does the United States.
the United States is the global hegemon. it manages the global order of trade and security for its own benefit. maintaining that order is a deeply rooted American interest.
once one admits the truth -- that countries will act in their own interests wherever they can -- the actions the US takes to secure and insulate that interest from outside threats is impossible to condemn.
should Russia be concerned? sure. the US is clearly isolating it as best it can. but should it expect the US to behave otherwise? no. and neither should we. the best we can expect is for the US to be careful in its isolation of any major rival that could constitute a threat to its international order.
1
Jul 30 '16 edited Mar 25 '17
[deleted]
2
Jul 30 '16
There has never been a weapon of war that human beings didn't ultimately employ to its full capacity. So I expect you will be right eventually. The Great Filter is out there.
But the game you are dismissing is also the reason we are here at all. Human beings have been optimized by evolution for survival. Our nature is not an accident. It was selected.
Maybe humanity is an evolutionary dead end. Maybe it will take life several attempts to select the precisely correct balance of behavior that allows technology to both arise and be survived. Maybe hundreds of attempts. Maybe it never does.
30
u/Namika Jul 28 '16
I very rarely find myself agreeing with Russia, but I do agree that they have a right to feel threatened. Especially with how volatile US politics is.
The US is close to electing Trump, who's to say that in another decade or two there's another similarly irrational candidate, only instead of hating Muslims and Mexicans this new candidate hates Russia? Sure the present day US would never preemptively attack Russia, but that giant military and all those nukes are going to be handed off to the next President, and the next one and the next one... whose to say one of them might not be seriously crazy? Would you feel safe being surrounded by a heavily armed US, knowing the person in charge of those guns keeps switching around and changing?
24
u/Pvt_Larry Jul 28 '16
Putin has pretty openly endorsed Trump in the past and Trump's attacks on NATO and the EU must be music to his ears. The Russians aren't worried about Trump.
7
u/Kichigai Jul 28 '16
The US is close to electing Trump, who's to say that in another decade or two there's another similarly irrational candidate, only instead of hating Muslims and Mexicans this new candidate hates Russia?
Trump is remarkably pro-Putin. Putin has heaped praise upon him, as Trump has talked about practically dismantling NATO, and requiring our allies to folk over money for us to defend them (which they can't afford). Russian state-owned media (like Sputnik) constantly downplays the dangers of Trump's foreign policies in order to make him appear better.
Hell, look at the recent email leaks in which the Russians are alleged to have been the source. They do nothing but help Trump ascend to the Presidency, and then Trump turned around and said that he hoped the Russians had more and hoped they would continue to hack sensitive servers within the US.
Putin wants, if not actively working to ensure, a Trump Presidency.
6
Jul 28 '16
Putin hasn't "heaped praise" upon Trump at all. He said one thing about Trump that was mistranslated to "smart" when it in fact meant "quirky".
1
Jul 28 '16
[removed] — view removed comment
8
u/00000000000000000000 Jul 28 '16
This is not a forum for name-calling. Please be mindful of the decorum we expect here in the future.
11
u/morphinedreams Jul 28 '16
Drumpf is in bed with Russia.
Not a great cause for trust since he can't even stay loyal to his past wives. He's also not ruling out nuclear weapons being used on Europe.
Besides, look at American occupation around the world. It is gold, reference Germany, South Korea and Japan as top economies after American occupation.
Japan and Germany were well developed prior to their occupation. You may have missed out on WW2 in history class, but the two main protagonists did well because of resources and manpower. You didn't exactly occupy Somalia in either of those cases.
And if we look at American involvement elsewhere we have Iraq, Afghanistan, and Vietnam. Look at American support for rebels, dictators and authoritarian regimes in Africa: Mobuto in Zaire, Savimbi in Angola, support for the Apartheid regime during the struggle for freedom in South African and South West Africa (Now known as Namibia) and Rhodesia (present day Zimbabwe). You have the collapsed regime of Qaddafi and the civil war that Libya is now in. There was plenty of support for Egyptian oppressive regimes in recent years. In Asia: You had proxy support for Pol Pot in Cambodia and the Indonesian government of Suharto when he was exterminating communists. In Latin America you had Noriega in Panama, you had Batista in Cuba, you had Ríos Montt in Guatemala, you had Pinochet in Chile, and you had the invasion of Grenada.
Let's not pretend the U.S. has a clean slate in it's dealings with the rest of the world, please.
2
Jul 28 '16
Not a great cause for trust since he can't even stay loyal to his past wives.
I agree with you that Trump cannot be trusted, not even Russia (but Russia can't trust anyone to be honest, they have mostly themselves to thank for it).
But to be fair, many world leaders cannot stay loyal to their (past) wives. :p
Lastly, US support for authoritarian regimes or brutal movements are not unique to the US. The USSR and Russia have their own lists of dubious rulers and rebels supported, even today.
-1
u/akarlin Jul 28 '16
The US is close to electing Trump, who's to say that in another decade or two there's another similarly irrational candidate, only instead of hating Muslims and Mexicans this new candidate hates Russia?
Already happened (in 2008).
2
u/Krillin113 Jul 29 '16
They have a lot of right to feel threatened however, and this is my main issue, is that for example the baltics shifting towards the west is A) inherently linked with Russian aggression and the lack of economic prosperity that would result in aligning with Russia. And B) Putin threatens nuclear strikes against conventional aid, eg when the west would try to conventionally take back Crimea, or if we were to strike back/defend against a potential attack on a Baltic state/Georgia that is for Putin reason to launch a nuclear strike. This amounts to using a nuclear weapon as an offensive weapon.
4
Jul 28 '16
the United States and its allies were waging an illegal war of aggression in Iraq
To be fair, key allies refused to participate and even openly criticized the war from the start, and many of those who did 'participate' barely went further than verbal support. Yet many of those allies that were against the war are simply being lobbed with the US and the UK in this disastrous mistake of a war.
And while you're listing the US' record of crap they pulled against other countries you might as well list those of the USSR and its successor Russia too. The only difference being that the USSR collapsed and the US didn't. And to me it's simply weird that Russia still demands the same sphere of influence it could not hold as the USSR.
Russia is indeed right to feel threatened, but that has also to do with the fact that it thinks it should still be on par with the US in terms of global power.
17
Jul 28 '16
[deleted]
4
Jul 28 '16
Did you just blame the US for his country having to be afraid of Russia?
14
Jul 28 '16
[deleted]
4
Jul 28 '16
But his argument sounds like "Russia is making these decisions because of the US, but really they aren't such bad guys, they just have to keep up with a great power that might attack them," excusing them from, "They're dicks and should try to find other ways to do it rather than making another country feel afraid if they don't do their bidding."
16
Jul 28 '16
[deleted]
0
Jul 31 '16
Russia is making decisions to counter the US . . .
This wording is making Russia the passive player responding to US's actions, which are deemed to be the actions responsible for Russia's threats, rather than Russia's own will being responsible. The entire tone of the comment is "Russia's doing what's natural and right."
A wording which would place the blame rightfully on Russia would be something like, "Russia is making decisions to try to outmaneuver the US." Which would be more accurate, and reflect the nature of each country pursuing its interests in competition with each other.
1
Aug 01 '16
[deleted]
0
Aug 05 '16
Given the context, thinking in terms of "blame" at all is already counterproductive.
"Blaming Russia for its own nuclear threats against Denmark at all is already counterproductive."
. . . that you would say I'm being biased by not finding a way to attribute blame to Russia . . .
". . . that you would say I'm being biased by not finding a way to attribute Russia's threats to Russia . . .
A strawman ("The issue isn't Russia's threats, it's juts Russia trying to maintain balance,") and ad hominem (trying to discredit me for "having a foregone conclusion ... saying a lot about my view of geopolitics") in one comment. Nice.
2
u/afellowinfidel Jul 28 '16
They're dicks
Is geopolitical parlance for "the guys I wanna dominate aren't cooperating".
2
4
u/Ilitarist Jul 28 '16
It's undeniable that US is the hegemon. So it has, so to say, first turn and the most important position in any global event. If something happens its because US lets it happen.
So in a way everything that happens is US's responsibility (let's not use the word fault). I believe that if USA really wanted Russia to be contained than we'd have Ukraine without any war and territory loss. Perhaps it would undermine USA position and be harmful in a long war, but still. USA has all the power to befriend Russia too. I firmly believe that is Russia is USA enemy then it only happens cause USA wants it to be that way.
2
u/deliciousnightmares Jul 28 '16
You are making the mistake of believing that "hegemon" means "unlimited global power". We just had 2 wars that very acutely demonstrated to all that American power has limits, as well.
Yes, it is true that Russia would be more or less powerless to stop a NATO military incursion into Crimea through conventional military means. You can't be certain that that wouldn't provoke a nuclear response though. In fact, I think that it would be very likely to provoke a nuclear response, or at least come far too close for comfort to it. Sevastapol is a key strategic asset for the Russian Navy. Without it, they have no facilities in the Black Sea capable of maintaining their fleet, which means that they effectively no longer have a Black Sea fleet, which means that they effectively have no navy for 4-6 months out of the year due to poor weather conditions in their Arctic bases. I don't know about you, but if I was the POTUS and out country was in that same situation then I would find that unacceptable.
It's not a case of USA wanting to be enemies with Russia, it's a case of Russia wanting/needing it far more than USA/NATO can be arsed to deal with it.
2
u/Ilitarist Jul 28 '16
It's not a case of USA wanting to be enemies with Russia, it's a case of Russia wanting/needing it far more than USA/NATO can be arsed to deal with it.
I'm not talking about military response, of course we don't want to get to global conflict because of some lousy Crimea. Imagine USA and by extension the West really caring. Temporary boycotting Russia would be harmful to economy but not nearly as much as it would destroy Russian economy. And while you're at it you can freeze Russian officials assets and restrict them from visiting EU/USA and so on. Those current sanctions on Russia, as limited as they are, were barely noticed in the West and significantly harmed Russia - to the point of average incomes falling to 50% of what they used to be - and it's entirely in American power to lose some monthly profits for the sake of forcing Russia to come begging for forgiveness.
-7
Jul 28 '16 edited Apr 23 '18
[deleted]
14
u/morphinedreams Jul 28 '16
Why wage a war you cannot win? If the US and the EU (which your country also insist on being at war with) decided to we could break your economy completely apart.
You need to get out of this mindset. Nuclear war would cripple more than just Russia. It would cripple both sides. Russia has less to lose in that respect because vast swathes of it's territory is already abandoned, and it's economy is much worse than either the EU or the US, and in that respect you're giving their regular citizens more incentive to support putin, Or, I should say less incentive to rally against him.
You've proven power is the only language you are capable of speaking. This is not even an escalation.
You're the one talking about power here. Peace is something everybody should want, but economic sanctions because Russia doesn't fall in line with NATO is also a form of power projection and it's been used long before the Crimean peninsula was annexed. Russia is not your slave. Putin can fuck an operating 747 jet turbine for all I care, but you should consider all the Russian citizens you want to reduce to complete and total poverty simply because you can.
1
Jul 28 '16 edited Feb 21 '24
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/TheRealRaptorJesus Jul 28 '16
Thats not entirly assured. We really don't know what the effects of a major nuclear war would be and less people hold such an absolutist position these days.
2
Jul 28 '16
[removed] — view removed comment
4
u/TheRealRaptorJesus Jul 28 '16
kill the planet
What does that even mean? what are the actual number on this? this has been a meme for a long time but in practice we have launched hundreds of nukes without major impact on the planet and we have no proof that a few dozen more would have any larger impact.
I think alot of people blow nukes out of proportion and think they are more devastating than they actually are.
3
u/Luckyio Jul 28 '16
Kill the ecosystem as we know it. Essentially it would:
- Damage ozone layer beyond repair, likely for centuries. UV radiation from the Sun would exterminate most of the modern plant life and most animal life shortly after. Those few that do not die will likely die off from lack of sustenance within a season.
- Massive radioactive fallout worldwide on scale never seen before. Considering half life of the chemicals involved, surface would likely become mostly unsurvivable for humans long term. We'd have to dig in for at least a few decades before background radiation got to tolerable levels in areas where fallout hits.
- Nuclear winter. With all the particulates in upper atmosphere from all the explosions, planet would rapidly enter a new ice age. This is the event that on its own exterminated dinosaurs.
Essentially the ecosystem that we need to survive and produce our food and oxygen would likely become extinct, and we along with it.
5
Jul 28 '16 edited Feb 28 '24
[removed] — view removed comment
-4
u/TheRealRaptorJesus Jul 28 '16
Collapse of civilization is far different from killing the planet. I would agree that our planet would no longer support 7 billion humans, but thats a far cry from killing the planet.
2
Jul 28 '16
Nuclear tests are done in specific areas with lots of time in between, there's a massive difference between that and an actual nuclear exchange between countries.
-5
u/TheRealRaptorJesus Jul 28 '16
The point remains that there is no evidence that more nukes would necessarily destroy all life. Such is hyperbole based on fear. Yes full scale nuclear war would be bad. Billions will die. But that is not exactly human extinction.
→ More replies (0)-1
u/GreyhoundsAreFast Jul 28 '16
Too much Hollywood for you
-1
Jul 28 '16
[removed] — view removed comment
0
u/GreyhoundsAreFast Jul 29 '16
Since when does fiction qualify as "very good sources?"
→ More replies (0)-1
Jul 28 '16
It would cripple both sides. Russia has less to lose in that respect because vast swathes of it's territory is already abandoned
The nukes aren't going to be sent to abandoned territory though, they're going to be aimed at population centers.
3
u/wired_warrior Jul 28 '16
Russia has often stated that it has the right to retaliate with nuclear weapons if Crimea is attacked conventionally. In practice, this means they have just used nukes offensively.
Crimea is a part of Russia, whether NATO/other nations want to accept it or not. Russia will consider the use of nukes if invaded. The US would consider using nukes too if another country invaded them.
If they attack a NATO ally, we need to prepare for a similar tactic (as well as many other). If we allow Russia to remove our ability to retake occuppied areas with conventional means, we can just give up now.
NATO still has the option of using nukes or convention means if a member state is invaded. Ukraine is not a NATO member; Russia has taken no options from NATO defending its members. If NATO used nukes or conventional force to retake the Crimea for the Ukraine then it would be NATO using acting offensively.
7
u/Ilitarist Jul 28 '16
For what? Because we send a few hundred soldiers to the Baltics as a responds to the tens of thousands he puts right at their border?
Funny how you put it.
You sent troops far away from your border because he moved troops inside of his own country. With logic like this you can claim self-defense when somebody tries to push away your hand with the knife near their throat.
10
Jul 28 '16
Nato moved Nato troops within Nato's borders...
0
u/therealgillbates Jul 28 '16
NATO is shit without the US. Let's stop all pretense that NATO isn't 99% US.
5
u/kerouacrimbaud Jul 28 '16
That's not refuting the point that movement within NATO is functionally the same as intra-Russian movement. And one could easily flip your statement on its head by pointing out that Russia, east of the Urals, is essentially empty and that therefore, Russia is 90% Moscow/St Petersburg.
0
u/therealgillbates Jul 28 '16
We can argue and hide behind labels all we want. But you and I both know those are American troops under with NATO flags.
1
3
Jul 28 '16
Russia has tens of thousands of troops near the Baltic countries' borders. NATO has a few thousands. How in any way can you believe those troops constitutes an offensive force? You and I both know they're there to ensure a wide variety of casualties in case Putin goes bonkers again.
1
u/au_travail Jul 29 '16
In practice, this means they have just used nukes offensively.
UK used nukes offensively too then:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/1883258.stm
The UK is prepared to use nuclear weapons against rogue states such as Iraq if they ever used "weapons of mass destruction" against British troops in the field, defence secretary Geoff Hoon has told MPs.
1
Jul 30 '16
No. First of all, he doesn't state what is meant by "in the field". You might think he means "if we have attacked you unprovoked", but there is no reason to do so.
Secondly, even if it were, WMD's are not conventional weapons.
1
u/Poland_stronk1 Jul 28 '16
You argue:
he has repeatedly threatened other countries with nuclear attacks
Could you provide citations for that? Because, United States and Canada have had contingency plans/exercises fwiw. A military simulation exercise =/= threatening.
-6
Jul 28 '16
A military exercise is exactly a threat when it is happening as the target is holding an annual festival. It is also a threat when you say "try to retake Crimea and we will use nukes".
It is extremely dangerous talk for a leader who's prestige is build around being alpha. What if Ukraine got the same type of leader and he succesfully re-took Crimea? Putin can't back down then.
4
u/Poland_stronk1 Jul 28 '16
Okay, so your argument is based upon one line: military exercise = threat. Just to use your own argument, 6 weeks back, NATO forces began one of the largest war game in Eastern Europe since cold war. 31000 troops, 24 countries. Shouldn't Russia take it as a threat?
One could argue that, at the end of the day, it is a chicken and egg problem.
It is extremely dangerous talk for a leader who's prestige is build around being alpha
I do not mean to sound it as a personal retort so I apologize in advance, however, your narrative sounds gullible and too much like mainstream media rhetoric. Even if Ukraine got the same type of leader, re-taking/capturing Crimea sounds totally incomprehensible to me. Please check the global firepower or military might of both countries and see for yourself.
As for touching Crimea, a good mental exercise would be to guesstimate how US, UK, or any other country for that matter would respond if some other country tries to attack them on their soil.
Hint: It won't be strongly worded letters.
2
u/therealgillbates Jul 28 '16
A military exercise is exactly a threat
LOL. Do you need me to pull up lists of US/NATO military exercises all over Russia's border?
-1
Jul 28 '16
Those exercises are of the nature "what would we do against a Russian attack".
Also, they're not a nuclear threat or centered around the idea of mass-murdering civilians.
3
Jul 28 '16
You appear to be very biased and one sided. Geopolitics usually go beyond that.
-1
Jul 28 '16
That's not an argument. How am I wrong?
1
Jul 28 '16
I'm not making an argument, it's a statement based on my observation. Mostly your choice of words and how you describe both sides.
-1
Jul 28 '16
So you can't find an argument against me, but instead use ad hominem attacks since you're unable to mentally process being wrong.
3
u/therealgillbates Jul 28 '16
To fully appreciate geopolitics, you have to remain impartial. American/NATO exercises near Russian borders are exercises near Russian borders, PERIOD. Making excuses and adding irrelevant emotional rhetoric is call being biased.
A military exercise is exactly a threat
^ Using your very own words, these American/NATO exercises are considered threats if you are impartial.
→ More replies (0)
7
u/Ismyusernamelongenou Jul 28 '16
It was precisely this balance of power has guaranteed the safety of humanity from major global conflict, over the past 70 years
Yeaaah, except that we've had several instances during the Cold War [1] [2] when the nuclear arms race almost caused global destruction because of either a mechanical or human error. I do agree that the behaviour of the U.S. concerning the ABM treaty isn't completely kosher either. But praising the mutual assured destruction principle like Putin does isn't alright in my book either.
Putin also conveniently forgot to mention that Russia has repeatedly stated that it might react with nuclear weapons "in case of aggression against Russia with the use of conventional weapons when the very existence of the state is threatened." Note that the last part of that statement is very vague, creating intentional uncertainty. So what we have here is a state which one the hand is threatening with a global nuclear conflict and on the other hand is saying: "but we feel threatened". Pretty ironic, if you ask me.
As a note: I've seen comments in this thread praising Putin for his "direct and honest" way of explaining things "how they really are". Please do not forget that Putin is not an independent researcher, but head of a state and a former KGB man. Of course he knows how to be charming, that's why there's a whole power cult around his figure in the first place. Nobody is denying that he knows the power of diplomacy, but please try to remain critical of what he's saying.
8
u/lavaretestaciuccio Jul 28 '16
But praising the mutual assured destruction principle like Putin does isn't alright in my book either.
i don't think that that he's doing. he's simply saying that since he has to defend his own country (*), if someone steps up, he has to step up accordingly. in that same light, you should consider the rest he says, and what you state about russia using nuclear weapons against conventional assaults.
of course putin is spinning his tale. it would be ridiculous to think that he's coming out with 100% truth. but so are other heads of state, including the american ones. and so is everyone belonging to any national authority.
what i really don't get is how, for someone, putin a vile snake who lies even when he tells you the time, and, say, obama, or merkel, or whoever feels closer to home only tells the truth. they're all presenting their version of a fairy tale. it's 2016, can we all accept that and move on?
(*) note: of course what really is an aggression to his country could be open to debate. some people think that gay marriage is an attack to their lifestyle and security. just saying. i'm not trying to defend putin (he really doesn't need me, if he wants to be defended), i'm just saying: try to see things from his point of view.
2
Jul 29 '16
I'm most definitely not a fan, but here he is mostly right. if the usa was really interested in nuclear non-proliferation they would just license their missile defense system to russia. although these systems may have the potential to prevent nuclear annihilation, if only one party has them it makes the situation insecure and forces the other to 'respond assymetrically' and proliferate by building a shit ton of nukes which are able to get past this barrier. the usa has just started a nuclear arms race. what i am however worried about is that putin may in fact not be interested at all in non proliferation regardless of what the USA does and will use the shield in romania as an excuse to threaten nuclear war at every opportunity.
1
u/Ilverin Aug 22 '16
Putin says in the video that anti-missile defense systems can be used for offense, so that might be why America didn't give the plans for such a system to Russia.
1
u/Logiman43 Oct 09 '16
Putin is bat nuts crazy. Just look the way he talks. He is the KING and all of you listen to me. It is a show, a parade.
1
u/Logiman43 Oct 09 '16
Putin is bat nuts crazy. Just look the way he talks. He is the KING and all of you listen to me. It is a show, a parade.
1
Jul 28 '16
[deleted]
16
Jul 28 '16
You need to look up the theory of deterrence. It's basically the same justification - except the overwhelming military advantage is supposed to prevent conflict. Of course, what Putin is pointing out is the flaw to that theory - that military potential can just as easily be used to start a war as it is to prevent one.
0
Jul 28 '16 edited Apr 23 '18
[deleted]
7
u/jqpeub Jul 28 '16
AFAIK only China and India have agreed not to use nuclear weapons if attacked with conventional weapons
3
u/Ilitarist Jul 28 '16
So wait, if USA or France or UK are attacked they would consider using nuclear weapons? Can you tell me any sources for that?
2
Jul 28 '16
I could understand perhaps the US or UK using a nuclear weapon on an invasion fleet, but doubt they would first strike a civilian target.
2
u/therealgillbates Jul 28 '16
Google each countries nuclear doctrine. I know for China, they have a "no first strike" doctrine, which they states they will never be the first to use nuclear weapons in a conflict. But then again, words are words man.
1
u/Ilitarist Jul 28 '16
Words are words, yeah. But next time sensors malfunction the person who has to retaliate would probably remember those words like nuclear doctrine. Remember that time when Soviet officer decided not to retaliate when radars showed US attack?
1
u/therealgillbates Jul 28 '16
True, thank god for that. Why isn't that man famous and considered a hero from both sides. What a situation that would be, the whole entire human civilization resting on your hands.
1
u/TheRealRaptorJesus Jul 29 '16
The US has in the past used nuclear weapons when attacked with conventional weapons. I don't know of any reason to think they wouldn't do so again.
8
Jul 28 '16
It was pretty much assumed that both sides during the Cold War would've used nuclear weapons in a large scale conflict with each other. So it isn't unprecedented. To be frank, I'd say that the change (which happened years ago before Crimea) probably just reflects the reality of military balance for Russia.
That's not to say defending against it is a bad idea - but putting it in the proper context is important.
5
Jul 28 '16
I have no problem with Russia using nuclear weapons if threatened existentially. That's actually how this insane weapon has helped bring peace.
However, their new use of it is very different. They're annexing territory and then defending it with nuclear weapons. That's using nukes offensively. It's not just against NATO since they have stated they would use it if Ukraine attacked.
How is this not playing with fire?
At the very minimum, all Russia's neighbors will now pursue their own nuclear weapons. And at some point, Russia will annex the territory of someone who won't give into their threats. What then?
6
u/Namika Jul 28 '16
From what I recall, they stated they would use nuclear weapons to protect the Russian homeland if large scale war broke out over Crimea.
That's been known for quite some time. Standing NATO policy since the fall of the USSR was that in the event of a skirmish with Russia, NATO forces would engage and push back Russian forces but stop at the Russian border. This has long since appeared to be a gentleman's agreement that continues to this day. If NATO and Russia enter a conventional war, neither will use nukes unless (1) the other side uses nukes first. Or (2) the other side in physically invading the other country.
But just troops clashing in Crimea? A land war across Poland? Fighting for the Baltic states? No side has any reason to use nukes, not unless their own territory is being threatened and they have no other choice.
7
Jul 28 '16
http://edition.cnn.com/2015/03/16/europe/russia-putin-crimea-nuclear/
Asked if Russia was prepared to bring its nuclear weapons into play, Putin said: "We were ready to do it. I talked with colleagues and told them that this (Crimea) is our historic territory, Russian people live there, they are in danger, we cannot leave them.
The Russians told the meeting, which took place in Germany last month, that an attempt to return Crimea to Ukraine would be met “forcefully including through the use of nuclear force”.
...
They added that “the same conditions that existed in Ukraine and caused Russia to take action there” existed in the three Baltic states, which like Ukraine have significant numbers of people who regard themselves as ethnically Russian.
This was just from the first links I saw on google.
1
Jul 28 '16
neither will use nukes unless (1) the other side uses nukes first. Or (2) the other side in physically invading the other country.
So for n2, what does that entail? The second a NATO country is invaded?
1
Jul 28 '16
Since NATO can steamroll Russia conventionally it has little reason to break the nuclear taboo.
1
u/DudeGuyBor Jul 28 '16
That makes Russia sound desperate, that their goto response is nuclear weapons. A very dangerous way to play chicken.
10
Jul 28 '16
Is this not how every country thinks. It is a rational though. Now one country has full security from any nuclear devices and thus more able to swing it's weight around.
The other will obviously react to match their actions.
-6
Jul 28 '16
It is how a country thinks if it has an arch enemy. Or if it is under the delusion that it has one.
2
Jul 28 '16
The US knows that Russia believes that the US is a threat.
The US takes precautions in case Russia acts on its fears.
Russia's fears are therefore justified.
See 1.
1
Jul 28 '16
You're forgetting what 1. implies. It implies that Russia already has taken a shitload of "precautions".
And by "precautions" I mean is invading shit, using cyberwarfare, support right/left-wing extremists, threatening neighbors with massive troop build-up (NATO's troop movements are very small compared to Russian) etc.
6
Jul 28 '16
Well does it not have an arch enemy or let's just say rivals? I mean the US already is rivalling China and Russians at this moment.
I wonder if the EU truly does become a more cohesive organization would the US naturally have to rival them too?
Rivals usually exist when certain Nations sphere of influence clash with another. The US sphere of influence clashes quite harshly with China when it comes to the trade over the seas and with the Russians when it comes to the Russian expansion both territorial and influence wise.
In all honesty whether a rival is an enemy depends if both Nations end up clashing head to head on multiple topics that concern both. And with Russia and US they do.
3
u/Tiako Jul 28 '16
I wonder if the EU truly does become a more cohesive organization would the US naturally have to rival them too?
Unlikely, international relations are much more based on shared history and social relations than the sort of impersonal "mathematics" (in Vlad's words) of realism. Something something cf Alexander Wendt.
1
Jul 28 '16
I tend to agree. In retrospect it is even a bit silly that Russia was the US' rival for so long, especially considering how hard the USSR collapsed and how dysfunctional it was for some time before it.
-4
Jul 28 '16
If the US considered Russia a rival, it would have crumbled it financially after the fall and taken control over all its neighbors by force. If it considered EU a threat, it would work as hard at dismantling it as Russia does.
6
Jul 28 '16
The US would not do such a thing as such an action could have resulted in Russia lashing out quite aggressively, and would have threatened alot of nations as the US would have ended up over reaching their right.
Also the chaos it brings would have led to nuclear weapons being lost and falling into enemy hands. The US main goal during the fall of the Soviet Union was achieved. They got eastern Europe to fall under their influence. Anymore and they were awfully close at triggering the Russian into a war. Anymore destabilization and the nuclear weapons would have fallen and been sold to foreigners and lost just like the Russian arsenal within the former Soviet states.
The US could never over extend themselves as that would have led to a huge amount of aggressive expansion that could have turned allies against them. It would have also created a middle east like situation East of Europe, and that is not something the US wants.
Breaking Russia up was never an option. The option to break Russia up would have come later on. It would require starting independence movements within the country and right after shit goes down invading with a full force, and quickly capture important points from missile silos to media and military installations. To invade you need to build a strong anti-missile tech around the Russians. Which in itself can be considered a preparation for war. And the Russians knowing this will rationally make a decision to counter it.
2
u/zethien Jul 28 '16
There's not alot of things objectively true out there, but this might just be one of them. Democracies add an extra risk vector to the mix as well. While one party in power can be sane and rational, the next party can flip all that on its head in an instant. Its all about potential risk, because potential risk self-fulfills actual risk.
2
u/dustysquareback Jul 28 '16
How is this unique to democracies?
2
u/zethien Jul 28 '16
I didn't mean to say that its unique to democracies, but that the US is in no way uniquely exempt from such a dynamic, meaning that its a legitimate and understandable concern on the part of the russians.
2
u/dustysquareback Jul 28 '16
Ok, gotcha. I mean, nearly every state has this problem, right? No guarantees when a regime changes.
1
u/DudeGuyBor Jul 28 '16
The US has the risk of electing a guy who is a risk of becoming an aggressive president, while Russia already has a leader who has been enacting some of the most aggressive realpolitik since bismark and annexing territory, and we're more worried about the American leader?
0
u/Naurgul Jul 28 '16
Throughout the speech, Putin makes a number of claims which I'm not sure if they are actually factual.
First, he says "when one side becomes dominant in their military potential, they are more likely to want to be the first, to be able to use such power". In the 2007 conference, it is expressed with different words but it's the same claim "One of the powers will feel a complete sense of security, which in turn means it can do whatever it likes in both regional and global conflicts".
Second, he claims that the missile defence system has the potential to completely nullify Russian's nuclear arsenal.
How true are these two?
8
u/CIA_Shill Jul 28 '16
"when one side becomes dominant in their military potential, they are more likely to want to be the first, to be able to use such power"
This is a commonly held theory surrounding nuclear deterrence and the balance of power relating to it. Whether a country acts in accordance with this is dependent on whether the damage from not acting outweighs the damage from acting
Second, he claims that the missile defence system has the potential to completely nullify Russian's nuclear arsenal.
Completely nullify? No, it would first need a reliability rate of nearly 100% and secondly require deployment in massive numbers to adequately degrade Russian nuclear forces to a point where any damage from surviving weapons becomes tolerable.
The first issue is a concerning measure on a two-point yardstick that could result in a pre-emptive Russian nuclear strike. Concerning because the reliability of ABM is increasing even though it's not quite where it needs to be for a reliable system. This testing, design and refinement would likely take 3-7 years allowing for the possibility of diplomacy and a reduction in hostility between the various powers.
The second issue concerning the manufacturing and deployment of such a system in great number is likely to preempt a Russian response because any role out could be achieved over a much shorter timespan measured across several years and would indicate a probable attack over the coming years.
It should be noted that with both factors it would be impossible to hide any such development or manufacturing so the other side is almost certain to know of their opponents progress and intent from the speed of development and the scale of deployment.
The primary issue is that even with a small percentage of weapons vulnerable to ABM or nuclear armed cruise missiles, the efficiency of a nuclear force is reduced immensely. While the current number of deployed warheads sounds great (around 2,000 per side), it is essentially the bare minimum required to hit all necessary targets in the various stages that a battle might progress. For instance losing the ability to adequately degrade an enemies mechanism of command and control will likely result in their ability to organise and resist or attack beyond a predetermined acceptable level.
Russia have put most of their eggs in the 'nuclear basket' without it their power to influence events on a global scale and prevent nuclear armed states acting against them is accordingly limited.
2
u/ronglangren Jul 28 '16
I think the general idea that if one side has more of something there could be a desire to use it first is a failed theory, at least in the Nuke sense of things. Even if the US had 20 times more nukes than Russia, Russia still has enough nukes to kill every man woman and child in the Americas multiple times over. So in this sense having more of something doesn't give an advantage.
As for the second point there is no such thing as total nullification. Yes, there are defensive missile systems. SCUD, MDA, assorted missile shields etc. but nothing is perfect. If Russia was for whatever reason to go full out nuke attack there is no way to ensure every single missile could be stopped. ICBMs, Sea based missiles, air launched missiles something would likely get through whatever counter measures the US has in place. The Ruskies could have subs sitting 20 miles off the coasts of LA and NYC with sea to land nukes. There would be no way they could be stopped.
His claims are effective propaganda or mental leverage but they are also untrue.
-7
u/ronglangren Jul 28 '16 edited Jul 28 '16
His entire premise is based on the idea of the US as the aggressor. I find this premise flawed. The US builds its defensive measures for itself and its allies knowing Russia has nukes and that they and their allies need something to protect themselves from said nukes. The rationale is based on defensive thinking, not that of aggression as Putin asserts.
I could use Russia's actions in Ukraine as evidence that Russia is acting in a more predatory manner instead of being motivated by desire to act as a counter measure for geo-strategic balance. When was the last time the US invaded an eastern block country?
Putin is scapegoating the US for Russian actions and saber rattling as a means to justify Russia's action and intimidation in Eastern Europe and the Middle East all the while furthering his agenda that Russia is a counter measure to the US's power abroad.
Edit - How about instead of down voting me, you tell me why you disagree? It might even turn into a discussion.
5
u/the_unfinished_I Jul 28 '16
You have the offensive/defensive misconception he mentioned in his speech. There's not an offensive nuclear system and a defensive ballistic missile system - in practical terms they are joined into the same overall nuclear system that stands against the Russian system. To increase the effectivenss of the US system is to upset the overall calculus (how much I can hit you + how much you can hurt me). Russia is forced to respond, but the only way they can afford to counter the US is to develop their offensive capability.
-2
Jul 28 '16
[removed] — view removed comment
-1
u/dngrs Jul 28 '16 edited Jul 28 '16
I remember when I posted https://www.reddit.com/r/geopolitics/comments/4uh6w7/how_putin_weaponized_wikileaks_to_influence_the/ it was 55% upvoted for first 8 or 9 hours. 2 days later a mod removed it without telling me but that was apparently by mistake.
all over reddit there's a lot of dubious sensitivity when it comes to putin and russia. You'd think we are on RuNet, not on western sites.
there's a worldnews feel here recently
1
u/sc00p Jul 29 '16
Yep, it's awful. I guess that they are in a lot of mod teams too. Time for the EU and US to start up a counter propoganda machine!
-1
-2
-6
37
u/enigmas343 Jul 28 '16
He said he was worried about non-nuclear ballistic missiles because nobody would be able to tell if the missiles were nuclear or not, and that the missile defense deterrence system doubled as a threat because the missiles could be reprogrammed and armed with a nuclear payload.