EuclidThe 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 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.
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 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.
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.
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.
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.
EuclidHe 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.
EuclidMy opinion always has been that this is a war between Russia and NATO
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.
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
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.'"
Perhaps some "pals" of Didi? Maybe only Putin? Maybe no one, including Putin, can predict what he would do under various contingencies.
Does anyone?
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.
EuclidI 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.
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
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.
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, 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.
Some of your hypotheticals (1, 2 and 3) have pretty definitive answers. Others are merely silly speculation.
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.
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.
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 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.
While Putin was the first to come up from the ranks, Yuri Andropov was Chairman of the KGB. He suppressed the Prague Spring Uprising.
EuclidIt 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.
The following article is a good testimony as to how perspective can flavor the "facts"
https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2022/03/putin-kremlin-foreign-policy-strategy/629388/
I would opine that the Tribune printed that map shortly after the Tsar Bomba was detonated by the Soviet Union in 1962 over Novaya Zemlya. The device was constructed at Khruschev's order in order to intimidate the West but it was too big to be useful.
Backshop charlie hebdo Some posters seem to take the present day nuclear threat mighty casually. As I said before, no one can pretend to predict what Putin and Company might do. If you're speaking to me, nothing could be further from the truth. I'm definitely concerned with what happens in the real world. What I'm not concerned with is person who constantly comes up with hypothetical situations where the answer could change on a day-to-day basis.
charlie hebdo Some posters seem to take the present day nuclear threat mighty casually. As I said before, no one can pretend to predict what Putin and Company might do.
Some posters seem to take the present day nuclear threat mighty casually. As I said before, no one can pretend to predict what Putin and Company might do.
If you're speaking to me, nothing could be further from the truth. I'm definitely concerned with what happens in the real world. What I'm not concerned with is person who constantly comes up with hypothetical situations where the answer could change on a day-to-day basis.
No, not addressed to you.
I recall the duck and cover drills in grade school in the 50s. One day several of us presented to our principal a diagram in the Trib showing concentric rings of destruction from a 50(?) megaton H-bomb dropped on the Loop. At 25 miles out, the level of destruction where we were was such to make survival a highly improbable outcome.
Euclid 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 both 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.
Without a face to face interview, including testing, it is very difficult to know Putin's mental state. Whether real or feigned instabity, the result is the same in terms of impact in West: caution in aiding Ukraine.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.