"Kazakhstan formerly had 1,410 Soviet strategic nuclear warheads placed on its territory and an undisclosed number of tactical nuclear weapons. ... Kazakhstan transferred all of its Soviet-era nuclear weapons to the Russian Federation by April 1995."
1. https://www.nti.org/analysis/articles/kazakhstan-nuclear-dis...
I live in the state most threatened by a nuclear Iran. But Iran has watched its neighbour to the west be invaded by NATO forces, Iran has watched its neighbour to the east be invaded by NATO forces, and has seen how NATO cowers in front of Russia at the hint of nuclear confrontation. If I were in their shoes, I would not give up the nation's only proven viable deterrent.
The 1991 attack on Iraq achieved quite a lot with regard to both terminating the brief invasion of Saudi Arabia and the less brief and more total one of Kuwait and ending Iraq’s active WMD programs and disarming them of their existing WMD.
(The 2003 attack achieved less, largely because the things it was supposedly aimed at achieving had in fact been achieved in 1991.)
You remember the Euros. They're constantly telling anyone who will listen that they (the Euros) have the world's largest economy (which is true by some measures, but seems to be irrelevant outside of the EU) and that soft power is more important, decisive even, in a modern world.
And yet, Euros don't seem to be willing to actually use soft power, at least not when they're paying.
Of course, I probably got this wrong, which is to be expected because I'm an American.
What's the reason this time (there's always an excuse): [1] The US stopped Euros from using soft-power. [2] The US kept said soft-power from working. [3] The US wouldn't pay its share.
Yes, the good cop receives the results in good-cop/bad-cop, but that doesn't imply that the bad-cop was irrelevant.
> And yet, Euros don't seem to be willing to actually use soft power, at least not when they're paying.
Well we did pay—just not in Russia, which was a bit stupid of us. The Germans paid to reintegrate the DDR, and we paid generally to expand the EU to its present borders with substantial investment through Union institutions.
This doesn’t always work (e.g. in Hungary) but it’s been surprisingly successful.
> Of course, I probably got this wrong, which is to be expected because I'm an American.
It’s a bit ridiculous to comment so confidently on a topic on which you admit you are ignorant.
As for the question of what the ‘excuse’ is, I’m, again, not Major, Chirac, or Kohl; I feel no need to defend this European failure. We didn’t really need the Americans, although you have lots of money so that would hardly hurt. We should have done it ourselves.
Instead, I put this all on the Euros. (BTW - West Germany doesn't get any credit for re-integrating the DDR - you're expected to take care of your own.)
The fall of the Soviet Union was a perfect opportunity for the Euros to show the US how it's done. It's in their backyard, they tell the US that they know how to deal with the USSR/Russia, and they claim to have the resources.
If what the Euros have been saying for years is true, there was no reason to have any US involvement in this project.
And yet you want me to accept that this is "the West's fault."
I do apologize for the Americanism - I wasn't actually admitting ignorance. Instead, I was pointing out that the Euros have made more than their share of screwups yet somehow always blame the US.
> Instead, I put this all on the Euros.
Unless you’re a complete isolationist (which is at least a consistent position), Russia is your problem too. I am perfectly happy to note that the fact that someone else failed to act doesn’t excuse one’s own inaction. But that applies symmetrically: the European failure to act hardly justifies yours. And taking any EU pronouncements claiming strategic autonomy seriously is a mug’s game.
> (BTW - West Germany doesn't get any credit for re-integrating the DDR - you're expected to take care of your own.)
Well, I also think of the Russians as my own—they used to speak fairly good French. I don’t care to apportion ‘credit’; my original point is that we (both the US and EU) never properly tried soft power.
> It's in their backyard, they tell the US that they know how to deal with the USSR/Russia, and they claim to have the resources.
I’m not sure that we did or do, generally. These days, we talk about working towards strategic autonomy—about e.g. starting a European army or similar. But EU politicians generally don’t claim that we have achieved it—some merely think it’s a good idea to work towards it. And in those days it hardly seems that anyone wanted to kick the Americans out of the important summits &c. &c.
> I was pointing out that the Euros have made more than their share of screwups yet somehow always blame the US.
In a cock-up more than one party can have cocked up.
Euros have been claiming for decades that they know how to do certain things with "soft power", that Americans should let them run things.
However, we're now seeing things happen that competent use of said soft-power was supposed to prevent.
The possible reasons are soft-power doesn't actually prevent those things, the implementation was flawed, inadequate resources, something/someone interfered, and no one bothered.
Do you want to go with "the US stopped the EU from using soft-power"?
I ask because all of the other reasons are all on the Euros. (Europe has the resources to do soft-power without US help; if a larger military is required, that lack is some combination of "flawed implementation" and "no one bothered" on Europe's part.)
This was the perfect opportunity to show that Europe really is superior and yet we're discussing why it's not their fault that soft-power didn't work.
And no, the US is not obligated to make soft-power work, let alone responsibility when the Euros fail at it.
As Steve Jobs said, the janitor can have excuses why he didn't do his job but an Apple VP doesn't get to have excuses.
> And in those days it hardly seems that anyone wanted to kick the Americans out of the important summits &c. &c.
You don't have to throw us out - just don't invite us. We're stupid and you're rich. You don't need us and we only screw things up.
> In a cock-up more than one party can have cocked up.
That point was that only the US gets blamed.
> That point was that only the US gets blamed.
Well, I didn’t do that, so I have no idea why you are attacking this strawman.
All I initially claimed was that soft power wasn’t tried properly. For some reason you seem to interpret this as an attack on the US which is why you’ve brought in the US-EU question, when it wasn’t relevant at all initially. I have no idea why you take any smug European remarks about our being maximally competent seriously, because nobody else would, and they hardly excuse failures in other countries’ planning.
It is also only your comments which apportion blame to one party only:
> I put this all on the Euros.
—
> The possible reasons are soft-power doesn't actually prevent those things, the implementation was flawed, inadequate resources, something/someone interfered, and no one bothered.
I’ve repeatedly said I agree that the implementation was flawed because nobody bothered with Russia in the same way that we did with other parts of Europe.
> Do you want to go with "the US stopped the EU from using soft-power"?
No, and your comments seem to assume that I did.
> And the fact that a failed Russia is a problem for the US also misses the point. (The ex-DDR is Germany's responsibility even though a failed DDR is a problem for the US.)
Well, yes, and if American policymakers spot that that someone else isn’t doing their job and they’re capable of doing it for them, it’s silly for them not to do so (and vice versa). It’s not like Americans or Europeans meaningfully attempt to avoid encroaching on others’ domains.
> This was the perfect opportunity to show that Europe really is superior
We’re talking about geopolitical strategy, not culture or food. Europe lost any claim to being any good at this sort of thing after WWII—we all know that.
> You don't have to throw us out - just don't invite us. We're stupid and you're rich. You don't need us and we only screw things up.
I hope you enjoy rebutting the imaginary Eurocrat you’re talking to on HN; of course Americans are stupid (compare the British occupation of Iraq a century ago to that tried most recently), but so are Europeans (see French mismanagement of Françafrique)—I am hardly claiming that we are any good at this, or even necessarily better than you.
One big difference is that Russia is the aggressor. Against Iran, the US would be the aggressor. Force may be unavoidable to stop aggression, but if you want a safer world, invading random countries for questionable reasons is a really bad idea.
No, just once with an escalation at 8 years in.
i have read on HN that "many countries opposed the US when it invaded iraq, afghanistan, yada yada" but the fact is, they way russia is being sidelined and singled out, no one has had the balls to do that with USA even when they managed to destroy sovereign nations in the interests of "free democracy" and other shenanigans.
> the crazy part is, just like the proverbial "iraq WMDs" the whole "iran threat" is mostly propaganda.
" Death to Israel." why do you care about israel as an american? are you a citizen of that country also that you feel a sense of insecurity towards that?
" Iran is a real threat, they are major backering force behind both Hamas and Hezbollah". cool so america can destroy IRAQ, afghanistan, libya, syria, vietnam among others but irans threat are a concern for you. good.
My own country is in fact surrounded by people who have tried multiple times to wipe us off the map with bombs, and failing that, now try to wipe us off the map with lie campaigns to influence social opinion. There is no reason to think that they won't continue to use bombs in the future. Perhaps if someone had a literal (not proverbial) warhead pointed at your children, then you would be less cavalier and naive.
i kinda live in the middle of a clusterfuck also called "kashmir". go and look up the atrocities and war crimes being committed by india and pakistan against my fellow citizens on an ongoing basis and consider my words then.
i know how it looks like when you have men barging in your homes and they take you away, never to be seen again or your homes being targeted and razed to the ground. to not knowing if you will return home at the end of the day so yeah, i am in the middle of this and can say that.
>Perhaps if someone had a literal (not proverbial) warhead pointed at your children, then you would be less cavalier and naive.
I admit to being generally ignorant of the situation in Kashmir. I know that Pakistan and India have been fighting over that beautiful land for decades, that both Hindi and Muslims live there. I assume that the Gawkadal massacre was against Muslims, though it is not stated specifically in the Wikipedia article. I would actually appreciate hearing more about your situation there, I have never met a Muslim from Kashmir and I'm certain that the popular media portrayal of the area is not accurate. My Gmail username is the same as my HN username. رمضان كريمط يا صديقي.
On the other hand, Ukraine had the pool of engineers and scientists to maintain / develop it, while Kazakhstan might have not: it's a smaller, mostly rural country. For example, in 1991, Ukraine had 15 nuclear reactors (~27% of the total electrical generational capacity) across 4 plants, while Kazakzhstan had a single reactor closed in 1999 ([2]).
1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power_in_Ukraine
2. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power_in_Kazakhstan
On the other hand, Kazakhstan is much more stable politically, not permanently bankrupt or begging, and actually has good relations with both Russia and the West - all of that compared to Ukraine. Not sure they really want a nuclear survivor adventure instead.
Similarly, the situation in Kazakhstan is stable because they are a vassal state of Russia. Watch what happened when there was the beginning of a color revolution there earlier this year: Russian quickly sent troops to assist the Kazakh government in violently putting it down. If a successful color revolution was to happen in Kazakhstan (unlikely), Russia would be playing the same military games with them that they are now doing with Ukraine.
Is there an example of a "successful" color revolution which brougt democracy and prosperity, instead of bringing Russian tanks and more coups de etat? You are exactly right - if one of these happens in Kazakhstan, RIP Kazakhstan. It's too complex of a country already.
Read the Independence Act of Ukraine from 1991, a referendum was held on that act by the entire population and approved with a clear majority.
The text clearly states that Ukraine should be independent and neutral status, it shall not join any military block.
By 2013-2014 calls for joining EU which has a defensive clause, effectively are calls to cancel the Independence Act of Ukraine.
(Just in case someone thought of democracy when they read "stable".)
And Kazakhstan is not quite locked down like North Korea. You were thinking Turkmenistan, or just projecting your prejudice towards all Central Asia. It is not without problems, of course.
The units actually holding the genocide weapons were loyal to Moscow, so becoming the de-facto owners would have involved fighting with Russian nuclear armed military units. YOLO indeed.
Pretty late. I remember what I was doing in 1995. Nukes getting transferred to the Russian Federation would definitely have surprised me, had I known.