By Chris Trotter*
The images broadcast on CNN were terrifying. Out of a glowing circle of dim light, multiple bolts of fire, moving at astonishing speed, burst from the lowering clouds and, in a thundering series of shattering explosions, struck the Ukrainian city of Dnipro.
It was a sight very few people, other than the weapons-scientists of the Cold War superpowers, had ever witnessed. Simply put, the arrival of MIRVs – Multiple Independently-targeted Re-entry Vehicles – was never intended to leave any witnesses.
How so? Because, at the tip of each independently-targeted re-entry vehicle was a nuclear warhead. Wherever they landed, destruction would be absolute.
Delivered by an ICBM – Inter-Continental Ballistic Missile – MIRVs were the ultimate doomsday device. Travelling at hypersonic speed, impossible to interdict (notwithstanding the claims of President Ronald Reagan’s notorious “Star Wars” programme) the MIRV innovation represented the apotheosis of the MAD – Mutual and Assured Destruction – doctrine. ICBM-delivered MIRVs were never supposed to be deployed, because their deployment signalled the imminent demise of human civilisation.
The man who ordered the strike on Dnipro, President of the Russian Federation Vladimir Putin, has told the world that what it witnessed was a new weapon: hypersonic, deadly-accurate, and devastating.
He should not be believed.
Russia has been firing its “new” hypersonic ballistic missiles at Ukraine for more than two years. Never before, however, has the launch of such missiles been preceded by a “heads-up” call to NORAD – the North American Aerospace Defence Command. Russia’s notification was necessary because NORAD’s satellite surveillance system is well aware of the difference between the “signature” of a hypersonic missile-launch, and that of an ICBM. Without the heads-up, NORAD would have had to treat the ICBM launch as the commencement of a nuclear attack.
Putin and his military commanders are not yet ready to initiate a countdown to Armageddon. So, what were they doing? What message was the devastating arrival of all those nuclear-defanged MIRVs supposed to send? And how should the government of far-away New Zealand respond?
Part of the answer to that question was supplied in the simultaneous confirmation of the Russian Federation’s latest protocols relating to the use of nuclear weapons. Whereas, in the past, the Federation declared its willingness to use nuclear weapons only in response to an attack using nuclear or other weapons of mass destruction “when the very existence of the state is put under threat.”
The Federation’s new nuclear war-fighting doctrine represents a significant lowering of that threshold. The deployment of nuclear weapons may now be contemplated in circumstances where military aggression by a non-nuclear state, acting “with the participation or support of a nuclear state” (a clear reference to Ukraine) threatens to inflict an unacceptable degree of devastation upon the people and infrastructure of the Russian Federation, and/or that of its close ally, Belarus.
Unsurprisingly, the Prime Minister of Poland, Donald Tusk, has expressed his alarm at this latest Russian attempt to pressure the USA and its Nato allies into forcing the Ukrainian government to suspend its recently-sanctioned deployment and use of American and British long-range ballistic missiles against targets hundreds of kilometres inside the Russian Federation’s borders.
On Friday, 22 November 2024, Tusk warned that: “The last few dozen hours have shown that the threat is serious and real when it comes to global conflict.” New Zealand’s Prime Minister, Christopher Luxon, and its Foreign Minister, Winston Peters, have yet to offer a substantive response to Russia’s terrifying demonstration of the MIRVs’ destructive potential.
New Zealand investors, by contrast, appear to be in exuberant spirits. While bourses across the European Union wobbled uneasily, the NZX50 closed out the trading week with a 2 percent surge to 13,017. Either the prospect of global conflict does not bother Kiwi investors, or they have already filed Russia’s threats under “sabre-rattling”.
Russia’s use of an ICBM equipped with MIRVs is not, however, an excuse for either indifference or exuberance. Taken together, the Dnipro attack and the changes to Russia’s nuclear doctrine, are nothing more nor less than a direct threat to Ukraine, the USA, Nato, and the rest of the world’s free peoples – including our own.
Narrowly justifiable when issued in retaliation for an unprovoked nuclear attack, the threatened use of nuclear weapons is completely indefensible in the context of Ukraine’s conventional defensive response to the Russian Federation’s illegal invasion of its sovereign territory in February 2022. That Nato declined to offer a more robust response to Putin’s nuclear sabre-rattling of more than 1,000 days ago can only, with the benefit of hindsight, be viewed as a dangerous dereliction of its duty to protect Europe and the wider world.
That New Zealand has been content, ever since the Russian invasion of Ukraine, to take cover behind the broad shoulders of the United States, the United Kingdom, Canada and Australia, is also a kind of dereliction.
Since 1985 New Zealand has proudly declared itself nuclear-free, incurring thereby the profound disapproval – bordering on the wrath – of our traditional Anglophone allies. Internationally, successive New Zealand governments have advocated strongly for both nuclear non-proliferation and nuclear disarmament. In doing so, we have acted in accordance with the argument advanced by David Lange during the Oxford Union debate of 1 March 1985, that:
“The fact is that Europe and the United States are ringed about with nuclear weapons, and your people have never been more at risk. There is simply only one thing more terrifying than nuclear weapons pointed in your direction and that is nuclear weapons pointed in your enemy’s direction: the outcome of their use would be the same in either case, and that is the annihilation of you and all of us. That is a defence which is no defence; it is a defence which disturbs far more than it reassures. The intention of those who for honourable motives use nuclear weapons to deter is to enhance security. Notwithstanding that intention, they succeed only in enhancing insecurity. Because the machine has perverted the motive.”
This country’s obligation to stand shoulder-to-shoulder with Ukraine is all the greater because the Ukrainians belong to that tragically small number of peoples who possessed nuclear weapons and gave them up.
In the aftermath of the Soviet Union’s collapse in 1991, the newly independent state of Ukraine was prevailed upon by the US and its allies to surrender its nuclear arsenal. In return, the United States, alongside the newly-minted Russian Federation, undertook to preserve and defend Ukraine’s territorial integrity – by force if necessary.
New Zealand has singularly failed to draw the correct lesson from Ukraine’s fate. We have cosied-up to our Five Eyes partners in the belief that, as a tiny country, we stand in need of large and powerful friends. But where were Ukraine’s large and powerful friends when she needed them? Tragically, they were in the same place they were in when the men and women (especially the women) of Afghanistan needed them.
If the invasion of a strategically-located European nation, a nation the United States had solemnly promised to defend, was not enough to persuade Uncle Sam to lock-and-load, then what possible reason could New Zealand possess for expecting him to lock-and-load on its behalf?
At the very most we might anticipate Uncle Sam being willing to arm us, and then watch us fight until the last New Zealander. Just as he was willing to (under)arm Ukraine and watch it fight until the last Ukrainian.
Putin is rattling his nuclear sabre in its scabbard for the very simple reason that, to date, it has worked.
Having staged aggressive manoeuvres on Ukraine’s borders for weeks prior to the February 2022 invasion, the Russian President had observed no instantaneous and unreserved mobilisation of Nato armies to the borders of Russia and Belarus; heard no announcement from the White House that America intended to honour its guarantee to defend Ukraine’s territorial integrity, and expected the Russian Federation to do the same; and observed no commitment on the part of the smaller members of the United Nations (which New Zealand could have led) to augment, as far as they were able, Ukraine’s right to self-defence.
All those measures, all those declarations, may not have been as terrifying as Putin’s demonstration of what a nuclear attack looks like; but every lesson to be drawn from the Russian bully’s career points to them being terrifying enough.
We can only hope that Donald Trump, soon to inherit America’s sabre – and its scabbard – is learning how to rattle it like mad.
*Chris Trotter has been writing and commenting professionally about New Zealand politics for more than 30 years. He writes a weekly column for interest.co.nz. His work may also be found at http://bowalleyroad.blogspot.com.
101 Comments
Understand that outgoing US Defence Secretary General Austin, in a telephone call with his Russian counterpart , was accused of making threats. To which he replied something like - “I am in command of the greatest military power that the world has ever seen, I don’t need to make threats. Think about that and call me back once you have” .The call back was made two days later. In his last presidency Trump made it pretty damn clear that the European NATO members required to contribute a heck of a lot more towards their own security, their own patch if you like. Those nations now have to contemplate the prospect of Russia advancing through Ukraine and eventually arriving at their borders. If they don’t want that then they obviously have to fight and stop Russia in Ukraine. Combined they have more than enough military to achieve that especially given how Russia has now been weakened by its campaign to date. Therefore Trump’s policy might be as simple as - your patch, you sort it.
The problem I see is:
1. They are too nice so don't do well when they encounter not nice people - some might call this wokeness but I never would :-)
2. They are too fragmented to do anything quickly - talkers not doers.....
3. They didn't pay attention to the last Trump presidency and figure that was an anomaly not the new reality
Especially Germany, France, Spain, Belgium. The Baltics are sound as is Poland. Presumably the Brits will back Poland - as they have done before......
The point was about NATO doing anything 'quickly' and I suggest that's historically fair. But the game has changed with Russia's imperialist expansion seriously rattling countries like Sweden, Finland and Poland. Putin knows that if the much bigger European economies expand defence spending by just a few % points of GDP and sing more from the same strategic song sheet they will present a major challenge to his military capacity.
The article misses two major points.
One is that there isn't enough planet anymore - and we're heading for an inevitable stoush over who gets what's left. Trotter ALWAYS misses that.
Secondly, I urge everyone to download/borrow the Kagan/Kagan book 'While America Sleeps'. One of them is married to Victoria Nuland - worth researching on her own. The aggressor, in Russian eyes, is the US. As it was with the Bay of Pigs backdoor deal removing US missiles from Turkey. This is a hegemony which has invaded more countries, upset more not-to-its-liking governments, than any other, by a goodly margin. The military-industrial complex is uncertain about Trump - and using the remaining weeks to peddle missiles and land-mines. But of course, per Monty Python, the holy hand-grenades are OK... just the others aren't...
Yes, the nuclear clock is closer to midnight - but it never really wasn't. We just lost sight of it as we sold houses to each other.
Probably better we just sell houses to each other and ignore it. Maybe my GF is right, don't even bother watching the news you cannot do anything to change things anyway. New Zealand wants to stay completely out of it and fly under the radar, Unlike the new UK PM opening his mouth and supplying weapons to Ukraine when they are a 20 minute hypersonic missile flight away from London. NATO poked the bear, now they have to deal with it.
Don't be fooled by BBC type propaganda. Respect other super powers and deal with them through diplomacy whether you like them or not. What if tomorrow Russians get in security agreement with Mexico, Americans will probably declare a WW. Recognize others areas of influence and stay away from that.
There are several irons heating in this fire. Russia does not have high levels of it's own munitions left, evidenced by its having to get them from North Korea, Iran and where ever else it can. But one stock it will have is it's ICBMs, and it is faced with the opportunity to fully test its systems in operation. The warhead doesn't need to be installed. The fact that we call these 'nuclear' is the absolute of what they are designed for, but lesser war heads can be used, even down to just kinetic penetrators. The bit that goes bang is the crux of this.
I was interested to read that the US provided Ukraine with security guarantees alongside Russia if Ukraine surrendered it's nukes. So the US has also breached its promises as well as Russia.
How should we react? Putin has from the very beginning of this, expressed a willingness to escalate to nuke if pressed. JFK proved a point with his military that the entire point to it has to include a willingness to employ it when needed, and his game of bluff with Khrushchev paid off over the soviet missiles in Cuba, as the Soviets were convinced of the US willingness to use theirs. Putin clearly has a different view, and has largely been proven correct. Right and wrong has clearly already been established here, but what is concerning is the US and European willingness to throw Ukraine under the bus. to sacrifice it in the name of appeasement. But they are still undecided on that too, maintaining a drip feed of constrained weapons to Ukraine. The constraints essentially meaning Ukraine cannot fully defend itself. The result a slow and painful death driven by an unbalanced aggressor. We should note all this and build a defence force capable of making invasion very painful for any invader. The Viet Cong proved that it can be done. It will cost though.
If China were to invade NZ to provide a base of action against Australia would we be happy for Aussie, the US, UK and all the others to sacrifice us in the name of appeasement? I doubt it. Historically appeasement has never worked. it has only ever delayed the inevitable, but draws out the resulting conflict much longer than it should have been in the first place.
Unfortunately, I don't think the invaders would play nice and neutralizing the threat would be straightforward. NZ must maintain its Western alliances.
Unfortunately true. One submerged sub 200 km distant can destroy in one strike what 300,000 troops would need months. So the balance of that is to possess the capability to reciprocate in kind. That is principally why Australia’s navy is buying the requisite subs. NZ may yet see it as necessary to contribute to one. HMAS Anzac?
One Chinese drone ship disguised as a container ship, with IR equipped anti personnel FPV drones, controlled via satellite link back to a warehouse full of gamers in Beijing, could sail freely around the country taking these hunters out with impunity. Have you not seen the FPV drone footage from Ukraine?
Now you know why the 2nd Amendment is so important to American's. Minnesota alone with a population of 5.4million has 3x's that number of hunters, and that doesn't even include the tens of thousands with a legally allowed holster strapped to their chest or leg. And of the ones who commit crimes with those guns news report after news report denote that the shooters most always are former felons who lost their right to bear arms. Basically only way to curb that problem is 3 strike laws that were all lifted over the past ten years. Compassion doesn't work with a committed criminal.
"I was interested to read that the US provided Ukraine with security guarantees alongside Russia if Ukraine surrendered it's nukes. So the US has also breached its promises as well as Russia. "
This is an important point that not enough people talk about. USA, UK and Russia agreed not to threaten/attack Ukraine in exchange for Ukraine giving up its nuclear arsenal which was one of the largest in the world at that time. They all signed the 'Budapest Memorandum'.
Despite the heads up, I'd bet the US defense system would have been on maximum readiness.
The low use-rate of the newest technology - like hypersonic missiles - by Russia suggests their build rate is low, and using an ICBM to deliver conventional warheads is unbelievably inefficient and expensive unless the target value is overwhelmingly high, and there's been no evidence of that.
A sabre rattling demonstration of capability it may be, but it's also a path to military penury.
A few random points in response to those in this article:
- Ukraine is in many respects a faux construct, it never possessed nuclear weapons (it would be like saying Iowa or Texas have rights to nuclear weapons stored on their territory if they seceded from the US) and its independence was never guaranteed by the US. Its current borders are the result of internal administrative re-jigging by Soviet authorities at various points in the 20th century, and then the chaotic collapse of the USSR. Russia is the recognised successor state of the USSR.
- Many of the major cities being fought over currently are indisputably Russian. Odessa for example was founded by Catherine the Great. Crimea is undeniably Russian, you just need to open any history book to realise that.
- The Ukrainian state has been riven with meddling by western powers, has been highly repressive (the Nazi background is real), corrupt, and guilty of human rights abuses including suppression of Russian-speakers.
- NATO have declared a shadow war on Russia despite Ukraine not being a member, and no western country having a defence treaties with them. Ukraine are at war, and are within their rights to strike at Russia using whatever means they have at their disposal, but if US/Europe are actively assisting in the killing of Russian soldiers and citizens, they should expect a Russian response. This is the dangerous part and provides the reason for genuine de-escalation that respects Russian concerns.
What should be done is a pragmatic recognition of the Russian sphere of influence in the region, and NATO protection for the rump Ukrainian state (everything west of Dnieper River). This conflict would not have happened if NATO kept to its 1990s promises.
And finally, Putin is not “mad” simply because he declared a war. He’s responded to a set of geopolitical concerns and imperatives that cut to the core of Russian national security. A Ukraine with 2021 borders, part of a foreign alliance, would not be acceptable to any Russian leader at any point in history. He's far from the most hawkish member of his government.
The Dnieper is a natural border and until Russia establishes itself on the west side, and while Ukraine still occupies Kharkov, the remainder of Ukraine remains relatively secure apart from aerial attacks. Early on, while he was still alive and active, Prigozhin declared the objective of seizing as much of the Dnieper east bank as far north as possible and then creating a defensive zone eastwards to the Russian border. That may well as a compromise now become a solution.
National borders and nations rise and fall and have done so many times in history. Peoples identity changes over time. It was a part of soviet doctrine to export ethnic Russians to satellite states to firm up their grip on those territories. So how far back do you want to go? You could argue that Genghis Khan controlled it at some stage. In modern Europe after the fall of the wall Ukraine was an independent, democratic country. That is all that counts really. Can any aggression be justified by a simple historic claim? what of all the other post soviet states? Do you think they too should roll over when Putin commands it?
Soviet control of its weapons systems ceased to exist after the fall of the USSR, thus to all intents Ukraine did possess nukes. Did they have the ability to put them to use is another question altogether. It stands that they received security guarantees from both Russia and the US, neither of which have been honoured.
NATO declaring a shadow war? I doubt it. They were slow to realise the threat to Europe and are only just now realising the extent. None of the European nations have the capacity to fight a sustained war on their own, and interestingly Russia doesn't either. So the west supplying arms to Ukraine is no surprise. To supply them conditionally is to tie Ukraine's hands behind their back. Do you think Iran and NK are supplying their weapons to Russia conditionally? Ukraine should be given the ability to defend itself to the fullest extent possible to prevent Russia from waging war against it. Because of their inaction, this war is very likely to spill over onto European territory now.
Well the deployment of Nth Korean troops by Russia provides a precedent if nothing else. This campaign has weakened Russia militarily, economically and socially. The UK, France, Germany,Italy have economies around the same size as Russia. Add in the other NATO members and Russia is dwarfed. The whole purpose of the formation of NATO, arising out of the Marshall plan post WW2, was to provide a deterrent to the Soviet Union as far as a future European theatre of war. In reality it is now being tested to its very foundation. The powers that be must recognise that if Russia is to be confronted then not having to do so within their own borders is of real merit.
So is Russia either weak, or a threat to Europe? Can't be both.
Where we concur is my view is that this war is a response to a declining Russian geostrategic reality, courtesy of Ukraine drifting into Western orbit.
Regardless of how this war concludes, they won't be ready for a major conventional conflict for another decade. However, this one did have to be fought.
Russia has not gone to a full mobilisation but it stands to reason that they have had a significant reduction in manpower, armaments and munitions etc from when they invaded. Their ability to advance and occupy all of Ukraine is therefore questionable, but not definitively known as to not be possible.Daresay what that status may actually be would be a large factor in any future peace negotiations. But as far as being threatened? Well any nuclear armed power is always going to be a threat.
FG. As a student of modern conflict history you'll be well aware of how the sheer size of the Soviet steppe bit by bit wore down the monstrous and formidably competent Wehrmacht. Putin faces the same dilemma and modern technology has tipped the balance of power in this conflict even more in favour of defence. It is now only a wide front breakthrough that would enable Putin to occupy all of Ukraine and that is, for multiple reasons, now increasingly unlikely.
Agree and once the Soviets gained air superiority, it was virtually game over. Shows how much things have changed now though doesn’t it in that the Russians here cannot risk their aircraft to any same degree. The Russians having been pushed back over the Dnieper at Kherson haven’t shown any actual ability to establish a salient in force on the west bank. If the intention is now to create a west to east line of defence from the Dnieper north of the Donetsk region then yes that is as the Germans, and Napoleon, discovered vast flat terrain offering little in the way of natural defenses. As we discussed Kharkov is the key to SE Ukraine and possibly Ukraine in forcing a salient around Kursk has reasoned to protect the flank there. My view is Russia cannot get across Ukraine without first occupying Kharkov and it is highly questionable that they can given its size, their present difficulties in overwhelming much smaller towns, and the strategic importance Ukraine must attach to it. If Russia does succeed though at Kharkov, then Ukraine is opened up north of the Dnieper and that should be the critical signal for NATO to put boots on the ground if they don’t want a Russian presence on their own borders.
Game effectively over a bit before then I'd propose. It's not until later 1943 that the Ruskies gained general air superiority. If you take Stalingrad as the turning point then it's logistics and manpower that were the decisive factor, where Russia had markedly superior rail capability than the germans and inexhaustible human resources. Yes, massive change in air power dynamics since then, with aviation largely sidelined at present apart from the aerial stand off bombing capability that is one of the few technical advantages RU has in UKR because of US restrictions. Agree with your tactical projections, except NATO boots on the ground if RU does breakthrough at Kharkiv. The west has numerous modern technological options that would rapidly stop Putins march west long before needing to deploy troops to the front line.
What are we defending? Lots of overpriced houses?
Methinks renters couldn't care less who they pay their rent too.
(There is a lot more in that previous statement than on first glance. My point being that once the ranks of the 'have nots' swell to a certain point - defense against an outside influence can become perilous for the local elite.)
1000 days ago were NATO prepared to give Ukraine all of the military equipment and training that it needed to push the Russians out of Ukraine in the hope that Russia would at no point feel threatened enough to retaliate with nukes? No
So a deal needed to be done then. In which everyone could live with the outcome. Emphasis on the word live. Because now there are tens of thousands of dead Ukrainian military and civilians. For what?
Not just Ukrainian dead, Russian and others too. that's the thing about wars. Political leaders sacrificing the young of the country on the altar of their own ambition and greed. At the end of all this I hope Putin can held to account, publicly for the world to see. Somehow i don't think that will happen.
Yes.
Who gets to fight the wars that politicians start?
I can't remember who said it, but I think an American general told congress once that politicians start wars by the military finishes them. If billionaires and anyone else dabbles in politics then they too should be accountable for their actions. Problem is that virtually never happens.
Poland is a NATO country. An attack on Poland would invoke Article 5. If Russia then kept it conventional they would be destroyed. If they went nuclear then they would be destroyed along with a large part of the rest of the world. For a sane person that is called a stalemate. In late 2021 when Russia began massing troops and equipment on the Ukrainian border. NATO could have granted Ukraine membership then. What would Russia have done? But NATO did not have the nerve for that and instead chose to sacrifice thousands of Ukrainians in a proxy war. With the aim of degrading Russia's conventional military. But that is utterly pointless as long as they have their nuclear capability.
The West do not even have the nerve to sanction India and China for buying discount Russian oil and giving themselves an economic advantage.But then again Belgium, Spain, and France are still importing LNG from Russia under long-term contracts.
I'll tell you why NATO didn't grant Ukraine membership in 2021/2022. Because NATO knew that would start an immediate war with Russia. It is also why Merkel and Sarkozy also refused to allow Ukraine to join NATO. Because it would start an immediate war with Russia. The longer that NATO keeps saying that Ukranian membership will happen down the track, the longer Russia will continue the war until there is no Ukraine left. There was one obvious way to keep Ukraine intact and at peace. And that was to declare that NATO expansion into Ukraine was not, is not and never will be on the table and that instead Ukraine would be neutral in all military matters. Ukraine could join the EU for its economic benefits, but not become part of the US military empire.
Ukraine has been pushing for NATO membership since 2002. It has been denied mostly due to concerns that it will upset Russia, (I have also seen documents which allude to the levels of corruption in Ukraine, but can't find them now) which i feel is shallow and self-serving. What about the other former soviet states?
Ukraine's membership of NATO has always been on the table and it is only politics that prevented it. the war everyone has feared is happening and now is threatening the rest of Europe. NATO and Europe's view of history is disappointing. Appeasement has never succeeded in avoiding a war, at best only ever delaying it.
Most people have not been following the Ukraine war as closely as I have, and I will say now that the military casualty numbers on both the Ukranian and Russian sides are literally at World War 1 levels. "Tens of thousands" of military casualties were reached in the first six months of the conflict.
I do wish we had a David Lange type in charge at the moment. To me the timing seems appropriate to take the opportunity to further distance/de-align ourselves and work toward South Pacific neutrality as I assume AUS is seriously reconsidering its military alliance with the US at the moment. As a South Pacific Defense Force - we would concentrate on defensive tactical weapons, EEZ surveillance and humanitarian assistance capabilities only. I also think it important for AUS and NZ (and perhaps PNG) to think about a jointly developed climate refugee program for our small Pacific Island neighbours, should the time come when abandonment becomes critical.
No comment on what's happening inside Russia? Methinks Pootin doesn't quite understand that even subservient (and terrified) Russians have a breaking point ...
Nabiullina vs. Stagflation: Can Putin's Top Technocrat Save the Russian Economy Once Again? (tl;dr? Skillful as she is, not a chance)
Russian Ruble Falls to 100 Per Dollar in Official Exchange Rate
Russia’s Economy Is Spoiling as Putin Struggles to Balance Guns and Butter
And this one from a few weeks back in case you missed it ...
Russia Faces a Wave of Bankruptcies as Borrowing Costs Skyrocket
While death & destruction are quicker - economics works too.
Not really. Lenin & Co were a murderous lot and the Bolsheviks were nothing else but Russian revolutionaries. Marx & Engles simply provided an alternative structure of government, off the shelf so to speak. Added bonus the compunction to wipe out the bourgeoisie. They could have just as easily adopted the USA system for instance. Anything at all in fact so long as it provided them the ability to maintain unassailable power.
The US system is unique in its Constitution and the history of how that was developed by revolutionaries determined to make a big break from Great Britain via the creation of a constitutional republic. There was no possibility of that occurring or working in Russia.
You miss the point. If there was something more suitable in the Junior Woodchuck’s Manual, the Bolsheviks could just have easily adopted and adapted that to suit. It’s having and applying the totalitarian power that counts, not the actual system used to enforce it. Why do you think colloquially, Stalin was called the “The Red Tsar?”
Perhaps, but then consider this. Lenin & Co had been around quite a while. Exiled by the Tsar’s regime and Stalin & Co, just like Adolf’s mob, fairly heavyweight bank robbers. World War 1 itself created and catalysed the opportunity of rebellion. Lots of unhappy soldiers in the field and armed. Suggests to me the rebellion was always in the making and its ambitions and purposes came in as a priority well before any real thought as to a system of government to adopt if successful. Just think if Marx had been around before Robespierre & Co the French political apparatus and function might now be the same? Nice debate though.
Agree, always enjoy such discussions. Agree with your pre 1917 contextualisation on the socio turmoil that existed then and was to become a breeding ground for the revolution but sticking to my proposition that Lenin was ideologically driven since before the early 1900's. It is recorded fact that Lenin became a committed communist after reading Marx as a student some 25 years before 1917. Re Robespierre & co, French society in multiple phases of its history have been susceptible to the life strangling siren call of marxism. Even in De Gaulle's time the threat still existed.
Well noted. Perhaps, with respect to the variety of French administrations going at the time, you may recall the Goons episode in which they were to uplift and sail Dartmoor prison to France, during which they pointed out, not to worry, it was all organised, they had got permission from one of the French governments.
That's stretching things a bit. Their economies will be weakened. I'd suggest Russia's economy is not far off devastation.
What none appeared to have mentioned with quite a few gung hos included, is the US's benefit in all of this. Weaken Russia dramatically and as a byproduct the EU as well. The US will weaken Russia and the EU to the last Ukrainian. I'd be pleasantly surprised if this changes under Trump.
The IMF, not known for being Putin fans, believes that the prospects for the Russian economy are in fact quite positive. Russia to grow faster than all advanced economies says IMF
And that to me is the biggest disappointment. To me Russia doesn't need to be an aggressor, taking land by force. With all it's natural resources it could easily be an economic powerhouse in the world to rival the US and China. It's population could be comparatively wealthy. But it would take a different type of government and leadership. Instead they have chosen to make themselves a pariah.
Chris. Russia is self sufficient for its basic consumer needs. Its citizens in the large metropolitan centres have been only moderately touched so far (although hyper inflation pain is ramping up), as Putin draws most of his meat wave troops from poorer rural areas. I suggest most urbanites are not 'terrified' as in the days of the soviet great terror and are a long way from 'breaking point'. A sweeping aside of the dictator Putin likely won't be triggered by a mass citizen uprising, it'll be when his entourage looses faith in him.
I thought that Chris Trotter, of all people, would have put the current extremely dangerous situation into more of an historical context. He even makes the fundamental mistake of saying Ukraine gave up its nukes. Ukraine never had nukes. Those nukes always belonged to the Soviet Union and all states agreed that the legal successor state to the Soviet Union was Russia. If there were Soviet nukes stationed in what became Germany or Lithuania, no one would have claimed at the fall of the USSR that those nukes then belonged to Germany or Lithuania.
Further, no great power, for that is the status that the extremely capable and measured Putin has returned Russia to in every measure (technological, military, industrial, financial and diplomatic), will tolerate imminent threats on its borders placed there by any other great power. The United States, understandably, did not tolerate the USSR's placement of nuclear capable missiles in Cuba, barely ten minutes flight away from the continental USA. Similarly, Russia will not tolerate the US placing nuclear capable missiles in Romania and Poland (or Ukraine), less than ten minutes flight away from Moscow. Now consider the ridiculous nature of the western attitude. We appear to consider it our God given right to ring Russia and China with our military and missile installations and when they object (as we surely would if they did the same to us), it is US who accuse THEM of "sabre rattling." Anyone who wants to get a real handle on how radically dangerous the brinksmanship western countries are playing at now needs to listen to the likes of Scott Ritter (former US Marine and UN weapons inspector) and Col Larry Wilkerson (former chief of staff to Secretary Colin Powell).
As a final detail, Trotter completely omitted why Russia demonstrated this new and devastating Intermediate Range Ballistic Missile (IRBM) capability. It was because NATO personnel directly attacked Russian territory (Kursk and Bryansk) using long range missile systems that only NATO personnel could target and operate. Ukranian personnel cannot operate the top secret technology involved with those very advanced systems. Putin previously said such a direct attack by NATO would cause a state of war. Given that both US ATACMS and UK storm shadow missiles were used, it is safe to assume that Russia now considers itself to be in a state of war with both countries.
You do sound a little like a Russian troll , apologist or whatever.
NATO exists to prevent Russian expansion, that is why all those states joined it; as they are quite rightly afraid of Russia.
NATO is no threat to Russia per se, just Russian imperialism/irredentism
Just like the sex charges used against Julian Assange invalidated Wikileak's revelations of multiple US war crimes? Given that Scott Ritter supervised and audited the dismantling of Soviet nuclear missile systems, I gently suggest that his credibility in this field is way, way above yours.
Try Professor Ted Postol with Col Daniel Davis instead if you prefer. Russia's New Missile: What it Means for Ukraine & the rest of the World w/Ted Postal, MIT
NATO exists to prevent Russian expansion
Historically, NATO was created to counter the USSR. Since the end of the USSR, NATO has served no purpose other than to continue expanding itself and its burgeoning overweight bureaucracy closer and closer to Russia. It has also increased the insecurity of its member states through its overtly hostile actions (Yugoslavia, Iraq, Libya, Afghanistan and now Ukraine) and especially through its refutation of the Russian backed principal of indivisible security (i.e. no state may be permitted to increase its own security at the expense of any other state).
A point that NZ needs to consider. About 2mins with the punch line at the end.
Not the most convincing article from Chris. One of his most revealing comments is the second sentence below.
At the very most we might anticipate Uncle Sam being willing to arm us, and then watch us fight until the last New Zealander. Just as he was willing to (under)arm Ukraine and watch it fight until the last Ukrainian.
The western ‘war in Ukraine’ has never really been about defending Ukraine. It has been about having a proxy war to weaken Russia economically and militarily. Imho there is no ‘good side’ in this war.
None of what I note below justifies what Russia has done, however to ignore these issues doesn’t help understanding the situation. Russia would never accept a Ukraine supported by the west on its border.
Chris doesn’t mention the western supported coup of Ukraine in 2014 which deposed a democratic elected Ukrainian government for one supported by the west.
The Ukrainian army shelling of Russian speaking (and backed) separatist regions in eastern Ukraine region - where people had previously voted to separate from Ukraine in a referendum. This conflict occurred from 2014.
https://www.crisisgroup.org/content/conflict-ukraines-donbas-visual-explainer
After Ukraine started negotiations, the west (Boris Johnson was the messenger) told Ukraine not to develop a peace deal with Russia in February 2022.
https://www.foreignaffairs.com/ukraine/talks-could-have-ended-war-ukraine
Why did the US wait 3 years for approving the use of the ATACMS against Russia – it was these US missiles that lead the recent Russia 'ICBM' missile demonstration.
We welcome your comments below. If you are not already registered, please register to comment.
Remember we welcome robust, respectful and insightful debate. We don't welcome abusive or defamatory comments and will de-register those repeatedly making such comments. Our current comment policy is here.