Political Posts

[Xerxes]

The remaining NG trade with Europe is the counter-weapon that Europe will deploy and I agree with that. But overtime that is slowly going away anyways. 

 

We in the west might see the use of any kind of nuclear weapons as a taboo (thereby your dealth cult comment), but clearly their military doctrine allows them to deploy as a first-use on the battlefield against enemy military formations. 

 

All I am saying is we cannot hold & apply conventional Western thinking. 

 

I for one have been mostly wrong abouy my assumptions about Russia in the past 2 months. So I will not assume that they will not trigger their tactical nuke based on some sort of conventional business case.

 

[Xerxes]

Said differently:

Did the Japanese military caste who held sway over the foreign affairs and governement at large made the right bet when they put their plan in motion for a pre-emptive strike at Pearl Harbour. Which was very much similiar to what they did in the 1904-05 war with Russia. i.e. pre-emptive strike being a normal course of action to start a military conflict.

 

It made sense from their point of view given the sandbox and their calculus. Washington may have thought otherwise ... but that didn't matter, the point is that the Japanese did it like that despite conventional thinking.

 

 

[changegonnacome]

2 hours ago, Viking said:

Will the use of a tactical nuclear weapon result i NATO actually joining the fight? I doubt it. Is ‘saving’ Ukraine worth risk of nuclear escalation to rest of Europe? Probably not. If this is Putin’s calculus then tactical nukes are likely on the table for Russia.

 

Its a simple equation here I think - strategically who cares more about this piece of land called Ukraine…….the West (EU/NATO/USA) or Russia?

 

Russia has demonstrated it cares a hell of a lot about it……it has sent its blood & treasure there to fight & die……deaths now numbering in the 10’s of 1000’s of its own people. Its sacrificed its domestic economy & prosperity & Putin has risked the wrath of his people. I think we can agree that Putin has risked alot and therefore we can agree he cares alot about Ukraine and its strategic importance to Russia? The West has surprised me with its level of coordination in regards to economic sanctions & military hardware donations and these have had costs for the West but these have, to date, been relatively minor. The West cares but so far hasn’t demonstrated that it cares a lot….….and certainly not enough to do what it actually could do that would be really really material…..and thats to stop sending billions of Euros to Russia every day for NG & oil.

 

Military conflicts are not always decided by military might……they are over time actually decided by perseverance (See Taliban vs. USA). The question is not who is the strongest but rather who cares more. In a proxy battle, as Ukraine is now, between the West & Russia….who has the greater perseverance & strongest stomach for this fight? I’m fairly convinced on my thoughts on the matter and i think Zelensky is too, given that he has already publicly conceded to Russian demands. The problem now for Zelensky & Ukraine is will the USA & those on the Ukrainian right allow him to sign a deal which effectively amounts to a Russian victory - a neutralized and neutered Ukraine……….or will he be made wait until the whole country is in ruins.

 

Finally in regards to a game of escalatory military maneuvers in 3rd countries - weak hands & stomachs get revealed very quickly in these situations,  as @Viking has alluded too….if/when Putin escalates with chemical weapons or tactical nukes we’ll see the West’s response ……but as I’ve posited i think we’ll find that our level of support for the situation in Ukraine has a very very low pain/risk threshold…even the vague possibility of ballistic nuclear weapons winging their way anywhere to the West will be enough to collapse domestic support for any further escalatory moves.

 

Helping far off Ukraine in this battle of democracy & freedom vs. autocracy & tyranny can be stomached when it amounts to an extra few bucks filling up your gas tank………..but if the spectre of any real danger coming to YOUR doorstep & YOUR family raises it heads…the question of strategic importance or how much we really care about Ukraine becomes the defining algebra. In this game of up the ante Putin almost certainly has the West beat.

Edited April 18, 2022 by changegonnacome

[james22]

1 hour ago, Xerxes said:

We in the west might see the use of any kind of nuclear weapons as a taboo (thereby your dealth cult comment), but clearly their military doctrine allows them to deploy as a first-use on the battlefield against enemy military formations.

 

 

Luckily, Ukraine has no military formations.

[no_free_lunch]

1 hour ago, Xerxes said:

The remaining NG trade with Europe is the counter-weapon that Europe will deploy and I agree with that. But overtime that is slowly going away anyways. 

 

We in the west might see the use of any kind of nuclear weapons as a taboo (thereby your dealth cult comment), but clearly their military doctrine allows them to deploy as a first-use on the battlefield against enemy military formations. 

 

All I am saying is we cannot hold & apply conventional Western thinking. 

 

I for one have been mostly wrong abouy my assumptions about Russia in the past 2 months. So I will not assume that they will not trigger their tactical nuke based on some sort of conventional business case.

 

I think that would go away immediately is the thing.  That's a fairly catastrophic loss to Russia.  They don't have much of an economy outside of energy sales.  Until you come up with an analysis that factors that in I don't buy it.

 

By death cult I meant their willingness to start WW3.  Their whole strategy towards NATO assumes that as an option but I can't see it being done unless they were already facing launched nukes.  After their withdraw from Kiev it seems clear they have very real limits and concerns for their troops safety. To go from that to a willingness to have their children annihilated, no just no.  If we see behavior like we saw with ISIS, routine suicide bombings and fight to the death mentality I would be a lot more concerned. 

 

 

Edited April 18, 2022 by no_free_lunch

[Spekulatius]

4 hours ago, Xerxes said:

 

 

Spek, you got to be kidding me in thinking that the West will get into a direct shooting war with Russia, if they use tactical nukes. The only thing one can say is that it will be completely different world the day after, even if it is a low-yield Hiroshima like nukes, due to the fact that they are tabooed.

 

 

 

 

 

No, I am not kidding. NATO gets involved using a conventional weapon response when Russia goes nuclear.

 

The reason is simple - letting it slide is not an alternative because once the Nuclear tactical strike pandora is out of the box, doing nothing is not a viable option because Putin will continue to use this weapon. Pretty simple , imo.

 

I grew up in Cold War time Germany. My history teacher was Major in the German Bundeswehr and went to great lengths explaining Cold logic and NATO‘s Mantra of “flexible response”. The logic is badically tit for tat with similar it lesser weapons but equal in power to the aggression.

 

My thinking is that NATO can get a similar response with conventional weapons than Russia can get with tactical nukes and that’s why I think it is likely.

 

It certainly means NATO enters war.

Edited April 18, 2022 by Spekulatius

[Spekulatius]

3 hours ago, changegonnacome said:

 

Completely agree & the people of Georgia would attest to that idea too…….those hollow NATO declarations, post the Budapest summit in 2008, with zero material follow-up setup a chain reaction of events were seeing today.

 

Finland & Sweden should take note…….the period of time between openly aspiring to join NATO and actually joining NATO should be as close to zero as possible.

Georgia is sort of screwed, due to its isolated location . It’s virtually indefensible if it were in the NATO. Also, there is no strategic value to Georgia or its location for NATO. Georgia in my opinion will never get admitted to the NATO for that very reason.

 

Ukraine is very different.

[maxthetrade]

4 hours ago, Viking said:

Will the use of a tactical nuclear weapon result i NATO actually joining the fight? I doubt it. Is ‘saving’ Ukraine worth risk of nuclear escalation to rest of Europe? Probably not. If this is Putin’s calculus then tactical nukes are likely on the table for Russia.

 

As i have been saying since Russia invaded Ukraine, the key player is China. If they are ok with Russia using a tactical nuke then we likely have our answer. India’s response would also be important.

 

Exactly! You guys really think that the US would risk total nuclear war to protect some east European country? No way. The key player is China, the've probably told Putin that they don't care about Ukraine but that nukes are off limit if Russia wants their support. 

[Viking]

1 hour ago, no_free_lunch said:

I think that would go away immediately is the thing.  That's a fairly catastrophic loss to Russia.  They don't have much of an economy outside of energy sales.  Until you come up with an analysis that factors that in I don't buy it.

 

By death cult I meant their willingness to start WW3.  Their whole strategy towards NATO assumes that as an option but I can't see it being done unless they were already facing launched nukes.  After their withdraw from Kiev it seems clear they have very real limits and concerns for their troops safety. To go from that to a willingness to have their children annihilated, no just no.  If we see behavior like we saw with ISIS, routine suicide bombings and fight to the death mentality I would be a lot more concerned. 

in the near term i don’t think Europe CAN realistically cut off Russian nat gas for another 12-24 months. The colder weather is < 6 months away. Putin has a short window where he still has significant leverage.
 

The US dropped the 2 bombs on Japan in WWII to save American lives (hand to hand combat in Japan would have been very costly in American lives) and shorten the war. Using tactical nukes in Ukraine would save Russian lives AND POSSIBLY shorten the war. What do you do if you want to take out Ukraine government / regime change? Drop a tactical nuke on Kiev. And now there are no Russian troops there. In the chaos that follows, take the East. Put up a wall and call it a victory. Get the propaganda flowing. With support from China… Because RUSSIA HAD NO CHOICE… it was all NATO’s Fault… get Fox/right wing in US parroting the Russia/China line… and we all KNOW Biden is really the one to blame - it is his fault! Horrific but not far fetched. And Putin likely gets away with it.

Edited April 18, 2022 by Viking

[Spekulatius]

21 minutes ago, maxthetrade said:

 

Exactly! You guys really think that the US would risk total nuclear war to protect some east European country? No way. The key player is China, the've probably told Putin that they don't care about Ukraine but that nukes are off limit if Russia wants their support. 

The risk of nuclear proliferation is not prevented by doing nothing, if Russia uses nuclear weapons. It is almost guaranteed that Russia will use them more.

Nuclear weapon use is a Pandora’s box - once opened , there is no telling on what happens next, but it won’t be nothing.

[changegonnacome]

1 hour ago, Spekulatius said:

My thinking is that NATO can get a similar response with conventional weapons than Russia can get with tactical nukes and that’s why I think it is likely.

 

It certainly means NATO enters war.

 

In all honesty I just don't see this happening…….if Russia escalates even with large fire bombs that literally destroy neighborhoods of Ukrainian cities killing civilians indiscriminately & flagrantly, a true horror filled escalation…….i think NATO stands by and watches, maybe then the NG & oil bans come in from EU (maybe)…but a NATO country actually entering the fray with boots on the ground or missles in the sky isn’t happening, I think were kidding ourselves that its even a possibility ……..Ukraine just doesn’t matter that much strategically for NATO, if it did, it would already be in NATO wouldn’t it? Seen as ‘we’ won the Cold War and all.

 

The big problem now thats emerged is the USA’s rhetoric around Putin being a war criminal & terrorist and given the scale of US arms into Ukraine & how this is fundamentally sustaining the Ukrainian side…….its very very clear at this stage this is classic Cold War-esque proxy war between the US & Russia being fought with Ukranian soldiers instead of American ones……where whats best for the Ukrainian people is now secondary consideration versus broader US domestic politics & foreign policy considerations & pride…....the US aka Joe Biden just ‘lost’ in Afghanistan to the Taliban, his administration aren’t about to ‘lose’ to Russia in Ukraine not till after 2024 anyway……..what Zelensky has already conceded to publicly in term of a peace deal is too close in its outline to a Russian victory…..and so the US decides to push on with arms supplies to them and will do so till every Ukranian male aged 16 - 60 is dead. Be very clear here, that the US could broker a peaceful settlement tomorrow exactly as Zelensky has conceded too…..but is choosing not too because of the wider foreign policy considerations.  “Waist deep in the big muddy & the big fool says to push on”  - so the old Peter Seeger song goes.

[no_free_lunch]

17 minutes ago, maxthetrade said:

 

Exactly! You guys really think that the US would risk total nuclear war to protect some east European country? No way. The key player is China, the've probably told Putin that they don't care about Ukraine but that nukes are off limit if Russia wants their support. 

It's not about protecting a specific country.  Are you guys really this naive?  It's about allowing this monster to grow and to enable it through inaction.  If Ukraine can be intimidated then why not Finland, Sweden, Moldova.   The bigger the USSR gets the more of a challenge will be.  Ultimately we could have people on this board saying are we really going to risk nuclear war over Poland, over Germany?  Best to stop it now while we have strength. 

 

The US has been going toe to toe and risking nuclear war since the 50s.  Vietnam, Korea , Cuba missile crisis.  Nothing new , although the current administration hasn't been tested as such.   I think it's definitely plausible but it won't play out as expected.  It could be the US arming Ukraine with nukes , total economic sanctions including with all trading partners, and yes conventional attacks on Russia facilities.

 

 

[Viking]

3 hours ago, changegonnacome said:

 

Its a simple equation here I think - strategically who cares more about this piece of land called Ukraine…….the West (EU/NATO/USA) or Russia?

 

Russia has demonstrated it cares a hell of a lot about it……it has sent its blood & treasure there to fight & die……deaths now numbering in the 10’s of 1000’s of its own people. Its sacrificed its domestic economy & prosperity & Putin has risked the wrath of his people. I think we can agree that Putin has risked alot and therefore we can agree he cares alot about Ukraine and its strategic importance to Russia? The West has surprised me with its level of coordination in regards to economic sanctions & military hardware donations and these have had costs for the West but these have, to date, been relatively minor. The West cares but so far hasn’t demonstrated that it cares a lot….….and certainly not enough to do what it actually could do that would be really really material…..and thats to stop sending billions of Euros to Russia every day for NG & oil.

 

Military conflicts are not always decided by military might……they are over time actually decided by perseverance (See Taliban vs. USA). The question is not who is the strongest but rather who cares more. In a proxy battle, as Ukraine is now, between the West & Russia….who has the greater perseverance & strongest stomach for this fight? I’m fairly convinced on my thoughts on the matter and i think Zelensky is too, given that he has already publicly conceded to Russian demands. The problem now for Zelensky & Ukraine is will the USA & those on the Ukrainian right allow him to sign a deal which effectively amounts to a Russian victory - a neutralized and neutered Ukraine……….or will he be made wait until the whole country is in ruins.

 

Finally in regards to a game of escalatory military maneuvers in 3rd countries - weak hands & stomachs get revealed very quickly in these situations,  as @Viking has alluded too….if/when Putin escalates with chemical weapons or tactical nukes we’ll see the West’s response ……but as I’ve posited i think we’ll find that our level of support for the situation in Ukraine has a very very low pain/risk threshold…even the vague possibility of ballistic nuclear weapons winging their way anywhere to the West will be enough to collapse domestic support for any further escalatory moves.

 

Helping far off Ukraine in this battle of democracy & freedom vs. autocracy & tyranny can be stomached when it amounts to an extra few bucks filling up your gas tank………..but if the spectre of any real danger coming to YOUR doorstep & YOUR family raises it heads…the question of strategic importance or how much we really care about Ukraine becomes the defining algebra. In this game of up the ante Putin almost certainly has the West beat.

As we have learned the past 7 weeks, Ukraine cares the most by far. If Ukraine gets the right weapons Russia is screwed. Ukraine is already destroyed. 
 

If Russia cares as much as you think then Putin likely has one way to achieve his objectives - tactical nukes. 

[Viking]

8 minutes ago, Spekulatius said:

The risk of nuclear proliferation is not prevented by doing nothing, if Russia uses nuclear weapons. It is almost guaranteed that Russia will use them more.

Nuclear weapon use is a Pandora’s box - once opened , there is no telling on what happens next, but it won’t be nothing.

Spek, if NATO will support Ukraine militarily if Russia uses tactical nukes then why do they not make that position clear to Russia before the fact? So there is no doubt? The fact NATO has not done this suggests to me they are unsure how to respond (not unified).

[changegonnacome]

9 minutes ago, Viking said:

Ukraine is already destroyed. 

 

Not quite yet……but it is getting there….…..taking control of Mariupol then further West into Southern Ukraine all the way to the port of Odessa seems to be Plan B…..Russia takes & controls these key parts of the Ukrainian economy and effectively its a country in name only. Forcing Zelensky & even the Ukranian far right to tell NATO/US to go to hell with more arms shipments….& to just let them sign a deal which as I keep reminding people Zelensky has already outlined whereby almost all Russia’s demands prior to the invasion are met.

[Xerxes]

2 hours ago, no_free_lunch said:

By death cult I meant their willingness to start WW3.  Their whole strategy towards NATO assumes that as an option but I can't see it being done unless they were already facing launched nukes.  After their withdraw from Kiev it seems clear they have very real limits and concerns for their troops safety. To go from that to a willingness to have their children annihilated, no just no.  If we see behavior like we saw with ISIS, routine suicide bombings and fight to the death mentality I would be a lot more concerned. 

 

 

 

What we consider as an escalation to WW3 (grouping all things nuclear) is probably seen by them as a legitimat extension of their current conventional war ... and not seen as escalation to WW3. Hence my example about Japan. West has a very different sandbox in term of how to view escalations when compared to Russia. i.e. a mismatch in the escalation ladder. I am not suggesting that they are ready to set the world ablaze for the hell of it, but I do suggest that they view tactical nukes as a natural extension of their forces currently fighting. Another tool in the toolbox, just like the flow of Western equipment to Ukraine, is another tool in the Western toolbox in its undeclared war against Russia.

 

The Western perspective is that the use of tactical nukes leads to WW3. That equation does not (in my opinion) hold for Russia.

 

Anyways, just my opinion.

 

Their concern for their troop safety (pulling from Kiev) is more of a concern in fixing a very flawed strategy of launching war on three axis, which has now been unified under the leadership of one general. 

 

 

 

 

[Xerxes]

23 minutes ago, Spekulatius said:

The risk of nuclear proliferation is not prevented by doing nothing, if Russia uses nuclear weapons. It is almost guaranteed that Russia will use them more.

Nuclear weapon use is a Pandora’s box - once opened , there is no telling on what happens next, but it won’t be nothing.

 

Well said, it becomes normal to use thereafter.

 

The Dow will drop 15% after the first use of nuke in the war, but then ends of closing the week on the positive, after the markets realize hey the world didnt end. Sad but true.

 

 

[Xerxes]

1 hour ago, Spekulatius said:

No, I am not kidding. NATO gets involved using a conventional weapon response when Russia goes nuclear.

 

The reason is simple - letting it slide is not an alternative because once the Nuclear tactical strike pandora is out of the box, doing nothing is not a viable option because Putin will continue to use this weapon. Pretty simple , imo.

 

I grew up in Cold War time Germany. My history teacher was Major in the German Bundeswehr and went to great lengths explaining Cold logic and NATO‘s Mantra of “flexible response”. The logic is badically tit for tat with similar it lesser weapons but equal in power to the aggression.

 

My thinking is that NATO can get a similar response with conventional weapons than Russia can get with tactical nukes and that’s why I think it is likely.

 

It certainly means NATO enters war.

 

makes sense, now that you put it this way

[Xerxes]

3 hours ago, changegonnacome said:

 

Its a simple equation here I think - strategically who cares more about this piece of land called Ukraine…….the West (EU/NATO/USA) or Russia?

 

That is a great point !

But i would say that point had a shelf-life that ended by the invasion. Now, the perspectives are very different.

If before we were toying with the Ukrainians, not being able to decide how much we ought to care, it is different now. 

 

 

[changegonnacome]

42 minutes ago, Xerxes said:

Now, the perspectives are very different.

If before we were toying with the Ukrainians, not being able to decide how much we ought to care, it is different now. 

 
True - it’s become a proxy fight now between the US & Russia……how can the US save face if the most logical Ukrainian-Russia ‘peace deal’ is one where Russia clearly achieved its stated strategic aim > i.e. no NATO expansion into Ukraine…..funnily enough Finland & Sweden’s accession into NATO might be an ‘out’ for everybody…..the US can say it back fired on Russia as NATO has two new members one on Russia’s doorstep, we in the West actually ‘won’….Russia can say who’s cares about Finland/Sweden wedged up in the Nordics, Russian security is predicated on the Eastern front from continental Europe going through Belarus & Ukraine, remaining either neutral or in the case Belarus a vassal state. Russia says it won. 

Edited April 18, 2022 by changegonnacome

[SharperDingaan]

Dropping a nuke WILL provoke a response. Most would expect it to be conventional precision weapons, targeting all high-value targets in the Ukraine theatre, including leadership, and the pipelines carrying Russian gas. US gives the weapons to the UN, and UN participants prosecute the strikes.

 

The Russian calculus relies on the US not matching the ante (by supplying the required weaponry), for fear of nuclear retaliation. The reality of course is that MADD immediately ratchets up the ante for all - as soon as any one player goes nuclear. The weaponry has little choice but to flow.

 

The Ukraine needs an interim  political solution. Most would expect a return to a cold-war iron curtain that includes parts of the Ukraine, NATO missiles parked in nearby countries, and the Ukraine in the middle; growing food. Nobody 'likes' it, it simply freezes the situation; but its the Russia 'old-men' know. Do nothing further, and over the next 30 years, they will all be dead from old age. 

 

All things Russian, point back to Putin. The reality is that 'Putin in a box' pops the boil, and allows the sepsis to safely drain out; the mystery is what comes after, and who does the deed. The reluctance is that whatever precedent is set, it could in-turn, be used on you. Hence, the preference for internal resolution, and limited outside 'official' help.

 

A nuke comes down, Russian forces in the Ukraine get annihilated, and the Iron Curtain comes down very rapidly. Obviously, not the optimum solution.

 

SD   

Edited April 19, 2022 by SharperDingaan

[no_free_lunch]

17 minutes ago, changegonnacome said:

 
True - it’s become a proxy fight now between the US & Russia……how can the US save face if the most logical Ukrainian-Russia ‘peace deal’ is one where Russia clearly achieved its stated strategic aim > i.e. no NATO expansion into Ukraine…..funnily enough Finland & Sweden’s accession into NATO might be an ‘out’ for everybody…..the US can say it back fired on Russia as NATO has two new members one on Russia’s doorstep, we in the West actually ‘won’….Russia can say who’s cares about Finland/Sweden wedged up in the Nordics, Russian security is predicated on the Eastern front from continental Europe going through Belarus & Ukraine, remaining either neutral or in the case Belarus a vassal state. Russia says it won. 

 

My take, based on reading random Ukrainian sources, is that they don't trust Russia to honor any agreements. I agree it's a proxy war but from what I can tell the average Ukrainian isn't interested in signing an agreement that won't be honored. It's not the US pulling the strings, the people there just understand what they are up against. 

[Xerxes]

6 minutes ago, SharperDingaan said:

Dropping a nuke WILL provoke a response. Most would expect it to be conventional precision weapons, targeting all high-value targets in the Ukraine theatre, including leadership, and the pipelines carrying Russian gas. US gives the weapons to the UN, and UN participants prosecute the strikes.

 

 

Who is saying it doesn’t ? The escalation ladder is what we are talking about. What response they expect vs what is given. Given all mishaps we saw in the past 8 weeks, I would say it is more likely than not that there is a huge mismatch on the escalation ladder and threshold. Moscow has a clear threshold and we don’t what that is. 
 

That said your point & Spek point differ that he is talking about direct conventional limited response within Ukraine by NATO. You are taking about U.S. increasing its supply of weaponry to UN.
 

This is not going to be Gulf War & Kuwait 2.0.
 

Pipeline carrying Russian gas does not need to be blown off, to add more damages to the Ukrainian infrastructure, the end customer can just stop receiving it and default on its contractual obligations (and deal with its consequences). Why blow off pipeline. (Other than have more business for Brookfield Infrastructure at a later date)

I guess we have different perspectives. 

 

 

[SharperDingaan]

Agreed, it's simply different POV's.

 

Putin cannot afford to lose, simply because he has too much on the table. He needs a victory in the east, a Ukraine annexation (before May 9 Victory Day), and can only continue doubling down. Should the new push fail, the remaining choices are biological or nuclear - both of which will provoke a GLOBAL response..

 

NATO, and UN participants, are NOT the same thing - the US supplying weapons via the UN does not trigger a NATO response.  The Gulf Wars and Kuwait were coalition forces, the same as the GLOBAL escalation response would very likely be. NATO does not go to war.

 

If you are going to escalate, you burn the boats (blow the pipelines). The objective is a decisive win as rapidly as possible, avoidance of a WWIII via an end to the escalation, and European (German) ongoing commitment. The world bears the temporary costs (higher gas prices), it does so because it is cheaper than escalation into WWIII, and it tries to minimize costs by getting to a practical political solution, as rapidly as possible 

 

All else equal, it will be brutal, but Russia should win the current push. But it is somewhat questionable if the Ukraine has access to unlimited supplies of western high-tech weaponry - hence the threats to cease supplying it. Of course - that is unlikely to happen. 

 

Russia is collapsing, and it is using its last reserves on Donbas. They fail to annex, the Iron Curtain comes down very quickly, and we get the political 'compromise'. 

 

Different POV.

 

SD

Edited April 19, 2022 by SharperDingaan

[Xerxes]

Understood. Cheers. 
 

I would just mention that the wrinkle would be that Russia has veto power in the UN Security Council. We can argue the flaws of the system, but for now it is what it is. 
 

UN was pretty much ignored by Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld as they prepared to march the legions to Gaul for glory in 2003. So not only Moscow & Beijing can veto everything they can also ignore it as a dead body (Ala John Bolton)
 

A UN move would be symbolic, but agree that if works would be a clever way to go around the NATO dilemma.