The designated (off-topic) Ukraine war thread

[Backshop]

Euclid

  In addition, he has discovered how to shatter the doctrine of Mutually Assured Destruction. 

By shattering M. A. D., Putin has gained all the power that M. A. D. was supposed to limit and evenly distribute.

 

Not really.Think of Ukraine like your neighbor who you only have a passing acquaitance with.  If his house catches on fire, you'll lend him your hose and water supply, but you're not going to run into his house to save his belongings.  While Ukraine has been getting better, year-to-year, it was quite shady for awhile.  That's why the army couldn't stop the Russians in Crimea in 2014 and why the west didn't object too much. It is in fact NATO that has kept things as they are, without other countries being involved.  NATO is a defensive treaty.  When a country is a member, it can't just do what it wants to militarily (although Turkey sometimes tries).  If it wasn't for NATO, eastern/central Europe would be a hodgepodge of interlinked defense treaties between individual countries.  The best example is Poland.  If they weren't in NATO, I'm sure they'd have defense treaties with Ukraine and probably Slovakia and the Baltics.  Poland would've been involved by now, and probably wish they could even today, just to get back at the Russians.  But they can't because that would be rash.  Sorta like if your big brother says that he'll protect you from the big bully, that doesn't mean that you go start a fight with the bully.  

[Euclid]

Backshop

 

 

Euclid

  In addition, he has discovered how to shatter the doctrine of Mutually Assured Destruction. 

By shattering M. A. D., Putin has gained all the power that M. A. D. was supposed to limit and evenly distribute.

 

 

 

 

Not really.Think of Ukraine like your neighbor who you only have a passing acquaitance with.  If his house catches on fire, you'll lend him your hose and water supply, but you're not going to run into his house to save his belongings.  While Ukraine has been getting better, year-to-year, it was quite shady for awhile.  That's why the army couldn't stop the Russians in Crimea in 2014 and why the west didn't object too much. It is in fact NATO that has kept things as they are, without other countries being involved.  NATO is a defensive treaty.  When a country is a member, it can't just do what it wants to militarily (although Turkey sometimes tries).  If it wasn't for NATO, eastern/central Europe would be a hodgepodge of interlinked defense treaties between individual countries.  The best example is Poland.  If they weren't in NATO, I'm sure they'd have defense treaties with Ukraine and probably Slovakia and the Baltics.  Poland would've been involved by now, and probably wish they could even today, just to get back at the Russians.  But they can't because that would be rash.  Sorta like if your big brother says that he'll protect you from the big bully, that doesn't mean that you go start a fight with the bully.  

 

 

 

When I refer to Putin shattering the doctrine of Mutually Assured Destruction, I am referring to my thoughts here in blue, which I posted earlier. 

 

 

Is the Doctrine of Deterrence Obsolete?

 

The seemingly irrational Ukraine invasion is causing people to question Putin’s physical and mental state.  But could it be that acting irrational when he is not irrational is part of Putin’s strategy along with his frequent threats to use nuclear weapons? 

 

It would be a strategy that converts the entire world’s nuclear deterrence into deterrence that is working only for Putin.  Clearly, it is working because it is providing him with enough nuclear deterrence to prevent NATO from acting on a moral basis to stop Putin’s rampage of war crimes.  That is confirmed every time we say we don’t want to start WWIII. 

 

In other words, Putin seems to be deterring conventional war and nuclear response against Russia by acting dangerous and unpredictable, a man who cannot be trusted to conform with the doctrine of Mutually Assured Destruction.

 

All Putin has to do is convince the world that he will use nukes whenever his red line is crossed.  It has nothing to with whether he actually will use them.  If the world believes he will, he has ended deterrence for everyone except Russia. 

 

Everyone else gets their deterrence from their nuclear weapons.  Putin will obtain that plus the extra deterrence he will get from convincing the world that he will use nuclear weapons if he feels angry.  And he will feel angry if we send  weapons to Ukraine or place sanctions on Russia.  So we decide not to set jets to Ukraine.  That is Putin’s deterrence working to prevent us from strengthening his adversary of Ukraine.  Every time we say we don’t want to start WWIII, that is Putin’s deterrence talking.     

 

This is why I believe we are actually in the most dangerous nuclear threat we have ever been in.  If that seems radical, it is because of the widespread comfort blanket of denial provided by M. A. D. 

 

[Backshop]

Still wrong.  NATO will only intervene when its members are attacked. NATO is still divided on the Ukraine issue.  While the US, Canada, UK, France, Scandinavian and the ex-Warsaw Pact members have been supporters, you haven't heard anything from Italy, Spain, Portugal, etc. Once again, NATO is a DEFENSIVE pact.  

[Euclid]

Backshop

Still wrong.  NATO will only intervene when its members are attacked. NATO is still divided on the Ukraine issue.  While the US, Canada, UK, France, Scandinavian and the ex-Warsaw Pact members have been supporters, you haven't heard anything from Italy, Spain, Portugal, etc. Once again, NATO is a DEFENSIVE pact.  

 

I am taking about Russia attacking NATO.  If that happened, what would NATO do? How would they respond?

 

If NATO responded with conventional warfare, and Putin retaliated with nukes, what would NATO do then?  Would NATO strike back in defense against Russia with nukes, or would they just continue fighting Putin with conventional warfare?   

 

What if Putin used nukes in Ukraine?  What would NATO do then?  Would they just stay out of it?  Or would they attack Russia because they regard a nuclear attack, even if it is just against Ukraine, as being a threat to NATO countries? 

 

What if the U.S. alone, wanted to drive Putin out of Ukraine?  Would being a part of NATO prevent them from doing that?

 

The point is that the West does not want to use their nukes, because that is the whole idea of having them, that is to have them, but not use them.  Then along comes Putin threatening to use nukes, and quite possibly willing to use them.  Then we either let him do anything he wants or we have WWIII. 

[charlie hebdo]

Some of your hypotheticals (1, 2 and 3) have pretty definitive answers. Others are merely silly speculation. 

[JayBee]

Euclid, the answers to many of your questions are unknowable. But I am fairly sure that if the Russians were to nuke say Vilnius, Riga, or Talinn. NATO would destroy a city like Smolensk or St. Petersburg, and let Russia know that if Putin takes it any further Moscow is next.

[Backshop]

Euclid

The point is that the West does not want to use their nukes, because that is the whole idea of having them, that is to have them, but not use them.  Then along comes Putin threatening to use nukes, and quite possibly willing to use them.  Then we either let him do anything he wants or we have WWIII. 

 

Once again, you're confused.  Not wanting to use nukes and not using nukes are two different things.

Here's an example.  I never want to have to ever shoot someone.  However, if my life or someone I care deeply about is threatened, I'll do what I have to do.  Same thing with NATO.  Russia doesn't want to use nukes, no matter what they say.  Remember how Russian planes used to constantly buzz western planes and ships?  Notice how they haven't been doing it lately?  That's because one little misstep could cause an incident. The last thing that Russia wants is to get into a direct confrontation with NATO.

[Euclid]

I just googled:   “Does mutually assured destruction doctrine work with Putin”

 

Surprisingly, the first article says almost exactly what I had concluded as the ideas I posted here near the end of the previous page (and second from top here).

 

https://www.salon.com/2022/03/11/mutually-assured-destruction-psychology/

 

Experts once thought mutually assured destruction would prevent nuclear war. Now they're not so sure

 

Vladimir Putin's actions in Ukraine seem to risk nuclear war — and that breaks an important precedent

 

By MATTHEW ROZSA

 

PUBLISHED MARCH 11, 2022 4:00PM (EST)

[BaltACD]

Euclid

I just googled:   “Does mutually assured destruction doctrine work with Putin”

 

Surprisingly, the first article says almost exactly what I had concluded as the ideas I posted here near the end of the previous page.

 

https://www.salon.com/2022/03/11/mutually-assured-destruction-psychology/

 

Experts once thought mutually assured destruction would prevent nuclear war. Now they're not so sure

 

Vladimir Putin's actions in Ukraine seem to risk nuclear war — and that breaks an important precedent

 

By MATTHEW ROZSA

 

PUBLISHED MARCH 11, 2022 4:00PM (EST)

I feature Vlad sees his mortality fast approaching and he wants to go out with a bang - a bang that any survivors will remember.

[charlie hebdo]

Euclid, Backshop and Matt Rozsa: It's all just speculation. There is no right answer and none of us have a direct pipeline to Putin's mind.

[Backshop]

Does anyone?

[charlie hebdo]

Perhaps some "pals" of Didi? Maybe only Putin?  Maybe no one, including Putin, can predict what he would do under various contingencies.

[Euclid]

I am not asking question because I need a right answer.  My questions are largely rhetorical.  I ask them because they suggest various outcomes that I think are possible.  Then the point is how those outcomes might progress.  I did not post the Salon article because I consider it to be solid facts predicting the future.  I posted it because I think the reasoning is so logical and interesting.  All that is needed is to read it and consider the logic.

 

I think that logic clearly points to the issue of how it is possible to shatter the doctrine of deterrence or M. A. D.  The article makes a clear and convincing case that the M. A. D. doctrine is flawed and always has been.  And what Putin is doing now demonstrates that point.  You don’t have to believe in any specific outcomes to see this point.  It is nothing more than the logic of human nature.  

 

https://www.salon.com/2022/03/11/mutually-assured-destruction-psychology/

[charlie hebdo]

The logic of human nature? Surely you jest. Emotions are not subject to the rules of logic.  Neither is much of economic or political behavior, let alone that if a dictator.

From Dictionary.com. "A rhetorical question. A question asked without expecting an answer but for the sake of emphasis or effect. The expected answer is usually 'yes'or 'no.'"

[Euclid]

My opinion always has been that this is a war between Russia and NATO with a current battle underway in Ukraine.  And as such, there is a risk that the U.S. will be drawn into a war with Russia at the will of NATO in Europe.   Here is an interview with a former NATO commander who has the same conclusion. 

 

He says that Ukraine needs to be quickly fortified with new and more powerful weapons.  He says that this will likely make Russia feel that NATO is making war against them by helping Ukraine.  He also says that, as NATO fortifies the fighting ability of Ukraine, NATO must prepare for war with Russia.

 

Here is the video:

 

NATO must be ready for the worst case - war | NATO former Commander

 

NATO’s former Deputy Supreme Allied Commander Europe, Richard Shirreff speaks to Times Radio about Putin's war on Ukraine.

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P_RVtqQA404

[CMStPnP]

Voices of Russian Dissent continue to leak through to Russian Citizens.   This was on Russian TV.

This is very sad to watch, a three star Russian General that has to know these comments are the end of his career for at least the moment.    Trying to get at least some recognition for the dead Russian soldiers he has seen from a State Propagandist attempting to hide casualties from the public.......

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WeXWbnA58Ow

 

[CMStPnP]

Euclid

My opinion always has been that this is a war between Russia and NATO

Where on earth are you getting that from?    How many times has that been refuted here and in the public space?

It's a war between Russia and the free world.    NATO is a Russian attempt at justification to limit opposition to what it is attempting and keep several almost free as well as free world countries neutral (specifically India) in an attempt to curtail sanctions.   

Russia has attacked a non-NATO country.   Since Putin has taken charge how many other non-NATO countries has Russia attacked or threatened with attack and it is not NATO that is causing it.    It is tilt away from Russia towards Europe out of Russias orbit.    Russia first started to intervene in Ukraine far before it made any indication it wanted to join NATO.    Ukraine only wanted initially a closer association with the EU and stated publicly it would rather follow the EU model than the association of states that Russia was attempting to put together.     Thats when the Russian meddling started to take place and the attempts to install the Russian stooge as head of Ukraine.    Once Ukraine saw the Russian heavy hand then it stated it would like to join NATO.

If there was no NATO, we would still have this conflict.

[JayBee]

Russia is in no condition to add any further direct enemies at this time or in the immediate future. They do not have that many reserves to take on any further countries. They need to keep troops in places like Armenia, and further east in the -stan countries and further east opposite China and even Japan. For example Japanese politicians made statements about wanting the Kuril Islands back that the Soviet Union took at the end of WW2, in response Russia added 2,000 men additional to bolster the Border Guards stationed there. This happened two weeks ago. 

 

Edit; I should add that Russia pulled troops off of peacekeeping duties in Nagorno-Karabahk to replace losses in Ukraine with predictable reesults, the war between Armenia and Azerbaijan hasn't resumed, but the amount of ceasefire violations had increased significantly. It may be just a few months before that war resumes.

[CMStPnP]

Euclid

He says that Ukraine needs to be quickly fortified with new and more powerful weapons.  He says that this will likely make Russia feel that NATO is making war against them by helping Ukraine.  He also says that, as NATO fortifies the fighting ability of Ukraine, NATO must prepare for war with Russia.

That is just hysteria.

Russia is already falling apart militarily.    They were no match for NATO prior to the conflict even with the NATO member countries not contributing their full 2%.   However we see more of the Russian Military because of the conflict....

Their Iskanlander missile is very crude and easily countered.

Russian cannot field the T-14 Armata tank in any decent numbers because they cannot afford it financially, they deliberately have kept it from the Ukraine conflict even though it is their most potent and deadly tank (allegedly).   Speculation that it too is crap and that Russia does not want it exposed as such.    They were heavily embarrased in Syria when a T-14 was destroyed by no more than a TOW 2B missile which was something their arms sales people stated was impossible due to it's counter measures.    Well it seems you should never say impossible.

Their cruise missiles are in fixed supply now (they can't build more) because the factory that makes their Engines has been damaged and is in Ukraine of all places.    I'm not sure if this impacts their hypersonic cruise missiles or not.   Further performance of their existing cruise missile stock is open to question now because apparently up to 25-30% have been falling out of the sky due to engine failure or some other defect says folks that monitor how many have launched and how many hit their targets.

First and foremost, the much more powerful and numerically superior Soviet Union understood fully it could not withstand a war with NATO for longer than a month or two at best.     So it's plans for for a rapid siezure of Europe (that we found after the collapse of the USSR were very unrealistic plans) and sue for peace after grabbing most of the land mass.    The USSR never had a plan to defeat NATO.

But now apparently reading your posts a much smaller Russia with a far smaller population base and smaller economy should be feared for their conventional warfare capabilities.......none of which has been demonstrated to the West since World War II on any battlefield.    It doesn't hurt to train continuously to be as ready as possible but NATO was ready for Russia well before this conflict.

[CMStPnP]

JayBee

Russia is in no condition to add any further direct enemies at this time or in the immediate future. They do not have that many reserves to take on any further countries. They need to keep troops in places like Armenia, and further east in the -stan countries and further east opposite China and even Japan. For example Japanese politicians made statements about wanting the Kuril Islands back that the Soviet Union took at the end of WW2, in response Russia added 2,000 men additional to bolster the Border Guards stationed there. This happened two weeks ago. 

 

Edit; I should add that Russia pulled troops off of peacekeeping duties in Nagorno-Karabahk to replace losses in Ukraine with predictable reesults, the war between Armenia and Azerbaijan hasn't resumed, but the amount of ceasefire violations had increased significantly. It may be just a few months before that war resumes.

I was hoping to see the first deployment of the T-14 Armata, remember that tank how Russian FSB trolls would brag about how it could outshoot an M1 tank and none of our anti-tank missiles could penetrate it's armor, blah, blah, blah.   Even the Kremlin bragged about it during their May Day parades.   Oh dear, no show during Ukraine conflict.    Last I heard from the Kremlin they had 1500 to 2000 on order.    Realistically Western experts say probably about 100-200 delivered and the small handful the sent to Syria didn't do too well.    So it looks to me like yet another overhyped weapons system.    Really that is all Russia has.   Exports of Oil and Weapons and it will do anything to prevent either from falling in sales volume.

[Euclid]

CMStPnP

 

 

Euclid

My opinion always has been that this is a war between Russia and NATO

 

 

Where on earth are you getting that from?    How many times has that been refuted here and in the public space?

It's a war between Russia and the free world.    NATO is a Russian attempt at justification to limit opposition to what it is attempting and keep several almost free as well as free world countries neutral (specifically India) in an attempt to curtail sanctions.   

If there was no NATO, we would still have this conflict.

The points I have cited are those exactly asserted by NATO’s former Deputy Supreme Allied Commander Europe, Richard Sherriff.  I will trust his judgement.  Did you open the link and watch his interview? 

 

Near the end, he says this:  “Which comes back to my point about the need for a fundamental mind shift in NATO.  This is not a war in Ukraine. This is a war involving NATO as a whole and that means all of us.” 

 

I think it is obvious that Putin’s grievance goes far beyond just taking Ukraine. Over and over, leading up to the invasion, he stressed that he would not invade if only NATO/Ukraine agreed with Russia that Ukraine will not join NATO.  I concluded from day #1 that this was a fight between Putin and NATO.  Ukraine is just a part of it, and it makes no difference that Ukraine is not in NATO. 

 

Putin is starting with Ukraine because it was the next country that would soon be lost from Russia by joining NATO.  Preventing that outcome was Putin’s first priority.  And all through this, NATO has been nervous that Putin might attack NATO.  What do you think it means when we say we don’t want to start WWIII?  It means we are worried about provoking Putin to attack NATO.

 

You may be right about the decrepit condition of the Russian military, and that may be highly relevant if this were a rational, methodical military conflict, if there is such a thing.  But obviously it is not rational at all.  It is angry, frustrated, impatient, and vindictive.  And it is essentially the work of one man who seems to be proceeding under the resolve that he will NOT allow himself to lose.  In his mind, I suspect if he destroyed NATO and Russia, including himself, he would nevertheless, not have lost.

[charlie hebdo]

And thus we have a good example of the difference between a post with opinions about what has happened based on the views of a cited expert (former NATO deputy commander) as opposed to a post which starts with demeaning the other poster and opining with little evidence from more expert sources.

[CMStPnP]

charlie hebdo

And thus we have a good example of the difference between a post with opinions about what has happened based on the views of a cited expert (former NATO deputy commander) as opposed to a post which starts with demeaning the other poster and opining with little evidence from more expert sources.

I guess you have to be conversant in the arguments about what the war in Ukraine is about in order to evaluate opinions here.    It is clear that your not because not only have you conveyed "expert" status again to someone that did not claim it.....    

Your elevating his opinion above the official position of NATO.   Which I have to say contradicts him being an "expert" in the area if that is his opinion.    Let me see official opinion of NATO........ former deputy commander from 2014.    One has a book out on conflict with Russia and made unproven allegations against others in British defense structure (claiming victimhood status on a related subject)...........the other is an alliance of which we are a part of.   

Not a tough call for me. 

And honestly, your lack of knowledge is not my problem to fix, it's yours.   How many times do I have to say use Google?   I am not providing links in every one of my posts to please a very small group of people or one person here I should say.   If it bothers you then don't converse with me and don't mention my posts.   You can still have discussions here with others that want to follow your rules.

[CMStPnP]

Euclid

The points I have cited are those exactly asserted by NATO’s former Deputy Supreme Allied Commander Europe, Richard Sherriff.  I will trust his judgement.  Did you open the link and watch his interview?    Near the end, he says this:  “Which comes back to my point about the need for a fundamental mind shift in NATO.  This is not a war in Ukraine. This is a war involving NATO as a whole and that means all of us.” 

I believe NATO and their historical timeline.    This guy is not only pushing a book but selling himself as an "I told you so" victim.   Which disqualifies himself as being objective, in my view.    Further he is giving his own personal opinion, it is not official nor is it expert.   Did you research his history or just find someone that went along with your opinion and clipped the link?    I suspect the latter.

On top of all that you misinterpreted what he is saying.   He is not saying Russia is in Ukraine because of NATO he is saying it will become a war with NATO.....look at his book which claims the same thing.    

[charlie hebdo]

Your post shows you are unable to support your positions. All you have is blustering and ad hominem attacks on all who challenge your assertions.

General Shirreff's relevant background certainly qualifies him as an expert.  Can you say the same about your own?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Shirreff

 

[CMStPnP]

charlie hebdo

Your post shows you are unable to support your positions. All you have is blustering and ad hominem attacks on all who challenge your assertions.

It's called a discussion.   I thought you were making an argument before people should be thick skinned.....what happened to that position?    Apparently you can't get over this fixation on  links or that you should be the guy that attempts to enforce their use.   Is this your forum or are you a poster like everyone else?

You'll generally find that if you treat others respectfully they will respond in kind.   You posted that ridiculous post assailing what I said and then now are surprised I refuted it?    What did you expect.     That I would start posting links with every post now?   Please.

[CMStPnP]

charlie hebdo

General Shirreff's relevant background certainly qualifies him as an expert.

That is your opinion, it is not stated nor does he state he is an expert.   You do realize the difference?    Not only that he is hawking a book with his point of view.   Last I don't believe he stated anywhere the war in Ukraine was because of NATO.   If he did I missed it or he is contrary to official NATO position.   Which I will take a command's opinion over that of a deputy commander that is disgruntled.

I never said I was an "expert" I am having a discussion of opinion.   My opinion differs from Euclid and I am explaining why before you took us on this tangent.

[charlie hebdo]

I'm not sure you have any relevant background in history or else you would not have made your comment about experts. Generally speaking an expert is someone by training and relevant experience who is knowledgeable about a particular area or discipline. Actual experts are not self-proclaimed ones.

I am not an expert on this and do not pretend to be one. I don't know if Shirreff is right or not. However the fact that he has written books does not disqualify him as knowledgeable about NATO, Russia and Ukraine. 

 

 

[CMStPnP]

charlie hebdo

I'm not sure you have any relevant background in history or else you would not have made your comment about experts. Generally speaking an expert is someone by training and relevant experience who is knowledgeable about a particular area or discipline. Actual experts are not self-proclaimed ones. I am not an expert on this and do not pretend to be one. I don't know if Shirreff is right or not. However the fact that he has written books does not disqualify him as knowledgeable about NATO, Russia and Ukraine.   

Note, I did not say he was not knowledgeable, you came up with that all on your own.    I said or implied his opinion was open to question.     So we obviously have a very major disagreement on what constitutes an unbiased expert on a subject matter area.   Regardless, that point is irrelevant to this forum as well.    As it is an informal discussion forum not an academic peer review forum.

BTW, "experts" are wrong too, so don't get fixated on that term......please.

[Electroliner 1935]

You guys are back to the old fight. He said, No, HE said. Get back on track before this gets "locked" by the monitor, PLEASE