UA-RU-NATO | DISCUSSIONS | 7 Feb - 28 Feb 23

[Publius]

We continue to be in the "According to someone near to someone else, something has been said somewhere close to Putin and it is highly trusted" zone.

These are 2 people close to the Cremlin, or 1 person that is a former Russian official? Or they are 3 people who says something? And who are they? And why Putin was supposed to use a nuke on Zaporizhzhia and not somewhere else. And finally, what it is said that is not already known? We alredy know that at the moment there is no risk of use of nuke and we know that Russia will use nuke in well known circumstances. This information have other objectives than what it seems to say. The goals of this kind of information are the following: to give the idea that Putin is alone, to give the idea that Russia feels weak, to give the idea that Putin is surrounded by official that are potentially traitors and that these traitors are up to the higher level of command, because the can speak with Putin or ear what he says, to give the idea that they have a direct channel with US journalists. The final intent of all that is to give the idea that stakes can be raised. So, it is functional in order to have the people supporting an escalation.

Your correct about the ambiguity of it all and you can dismiss it as attention getting by aggressive journalist.,

You can also put it in context with political commentary on Russian TV.

So it is in fact a prevalent messaging from state russian tv prognosticators and officials. They have been spouting this nuclear strike option from the very beginning of the invasion.

So this leaves this with two take aways.

1 Russia is serious and likely desperate to reclaim the geographical choke points of Europe into Russia.

Personally I believe this is a wag the dog exercise from Russian leadership to divert attention away from domestic issues.
Fair enough, all countries have shown propensity to use this distraction from internal social or economic pressure as well in the past.

I claim it a wag the dog issue based upon this. Prior to 2022 as you yourself have observed. Europe had almost completely demilitarized its-self against a Russian invasion. Let alone a nato military expansion into Russia.
So Putin’s argument we had to do this because nato was planning and a danger to mother Russia is mute.

2. That leaves the west with a choice to make. Do nothing or end support of the Ukrainian people who have been fighting for a year for their nation.

Allowing Russia regain the initiative and begin to sweep across Ukraine with a vengeance. Inflicting likely terrible punishment upon Ukrainian people.

We do have repeated precedent for this in just the last century. So it is a real danger of abandoning Ukraine now.,

As well as giving Russia a complete validation in their minds, that nuclear blackmail works to achieve conventional territorial gains.

So your left with what to do.

Absolutely negotiate by any means possible. But Standing down or walking away from it won’t work because that is signaling defeat and validating Russias nuclear blackmail gambit. As well as the complete subjection of the Ukrainian people.
History proves it will be bloody.

Russia has not been willing to concede or negotiate anything except we won’t execute Zelinski. WOW what a concession.

So call it a death spiral if you want. Pack your bags and get out of nuclear strike zones.

Or we could let Russia have Ukraine for now and a few years of pseudo-peace.
While also reigniting a full blow nuclear weapons modernization-buildup and all that would entail.
Nuclear armed B-2 regularly in the North Sea. B-52’s squadrons stationed in England. Nuclear armed IRBM’s back in Germany or Poland.

It’s the situation we have not the one we wished we could have.

Respond and act accordingly.

 

[bartok]

Your correct about the ambiguity of it all and you can dismiss it as attention getting by aggressive journalist.,

You can also put it in context with political commentary on Russian TV.

So it is in fact a prevalent messaging from state russian tv prognosticators and officials. They have been spouting this nuclear strike option from the very beginning of the invasion.

So this leaves this with two take aways.

1 Russia is serious and likely desperate to reclaim the geographical choke points of Europe into Russia.

Personally I believe this is a wag the dog exercise from Russian leadership to divert attention away from domestic issues.
Fair enough, all countries have shown propensity to use this distraction from internal social or economic pressure as well in the past.

I claim it a wag the dog issue based upon this. Prior to 2022 as you yourself have observed. Europe had almost completely demilitarized its-self against a Russian invasion. Let alone a nato military expansion into Russia.
So Putin’s argument we had to do this because nato was planning and a danger to mother Russia is mute.

2. That leaves the west with a choice to make. Do nothing or end support of the Ukrainian people who have been fighting for a year for their nation.

Allowing Russia regain the initiative and begin to sweep across Ukraine with a vengeance. Inflicting likely terrible punishment upon Ukrainian people.

We do have repeated precedent for this in just the last century. So it is a real danger of abandoning Ukraine now.,

As well as giving Russia a complete validation in their minds, that nuclear blackmail works to achieve conventional territorial gains.

So your left with what to do.

Absolutely negotiate by any means possible. But Standing down or walking away from it won’t work because that is signaling defeat and validating Russias nuclear blackmail gambit. As well as the complete subjection of the Ukrainian people.
History proves it will be bloody.

Russia has not been willing to concede or negotiate anything except we won’t execute Zelinski. WOW what a concession.

So call it a death spiral if you want. Pack your bags and get out of nuclear strike zones.

Or we could let Russia have Ukraine for now and a few years of pseudo-peace.
While also reigniting a full blow nuclear weapons modernization-buildup and all that would entail.
Nuclear armed B-2 regularly in the North Sea. B-52’s squadrons stationed in England. Nuclear armed IRBM’s back in Germany or Poland.

It’s the situation we have not the one we wished we could have.

Respond and act accordingly.

I don't understand completely why you have answered to me with this message. I have responded to a "somewhat somewhere said something by someone near to Putin" message, not to a Russian message intended to bomb London, that is garbage as well. Then you put the discours in a more generic posture, but I didn't refered to this.

 

[BorisBadenov]

I don't understand completely why you have answered to me with this message. I have responded to a "somewhat somewhere said something by someone near to Putin" message, not to a Russian message intended to bomb London, that is garbage as well. Then you put the discours in a more generic posture, but I didn't refered to this.

You want bomb London komrade?

 

[DEFCON Warning System]

Or we could let Russia have Ukraine for now and a few years of pseudo-peace.

I think this is what the West is going to go for. They want Ukraine back at the negotiating table, which means concessions by Ukraine. Russia gives up nothing and are rewarded for their invasion.

Back to pre-WWII status.

 

[Friendly Engineer]

Back to pre-WWII status.

I doubt Ukraine would be happy giving parts of their country back to Poland.

 

[Friendly Engineer]

I think the best solution is to let Ukraine do it's big push, then when that slows down have a Korea style solution with a DMZ + ceasefire.

 

[DEFCON Warning System]

I doubt Ukraine would be happy giving parts of their country back to Poland.

What I meant was giving Russia land in the hopes that this time it will stop their aggressiveness. Just like they did with Germany just before WWII broke out.

 

[DEFCON Warning System]

I think the best solution is to let Ukraine do it's big push, then when that slows down have a Korea style solution with a DMZ + ceasefire.

If Russia gets one inch of land, they are rewarded.

Better to deal with them now than later.

 

[Friendly Engineer]

What I meant was giving Russia land in the hopes that this time it will stop their aggressiveness. Just like they did with Germany just before WWII broke out.

And we all saw how that worked out.

 

[Publius]

I don't understand completely why you have answered to me with this message. I have responded to a "somewhat somewhere said something by someone near to Putin" message, not to a Russian message intended to bomb London, that is garbage as well. Then you put the discours in a more generic posture, but I didn't refered to this.

My intent was to point out that Russia posturing with nuclear war as a consequence of depriving them of their expansionist desires is real.

With that said that leaves us with continuing on the course we are currently on to deprive them of that I’m Ukraine.
Or we return to Cold War nuclear build up and deployment.
It is at this point an either or.

We’re past walking it back with any reasonable conclusion.

 

[Publius]

If Russia gets one inch of land, they are rewarded.

Better to deal with them now than later.

Or prepare to completely militarize all of Eastern Europe. And expedite a modernized ICBM delivery system.

What ignored by so many is the clear intentions of Russia to re-establish the military control of their frontier lands.
They won’t stop.
Ageis ashore all across the Baltics Poland and Romania. With IRBM nukes behind them.
It’s a cluster and too few have the balls for it.

 

[DEFCON Warning System]

It’s a cluster and too few have the balls for it.

Too many people live in an ideal world. Or they are willing for others to give up because it doesn't affect them personally.

Maybe MacArthur(?) was right and we should have dealt with the Soviet Union right after WWII. idk. Would certainly be a different world, but who knows if it would be better.

Should the West risk itself for Ukraine?

Are the risks even greater if something isn't done now?

 

[Publius]

Too many people live in an ideal world. Or they are willing for others to give up because it doesn't affect them personally.

Maybe MacArthur(?) was right and we should have dealt with the Soviet Union right after WWII. idk. Would certainly be a different world, but who knows if it would be better.

Should the West risk itself for Ukraine?

Are the risks even greater if something isn't done now?

That’s why a proposed we had two choices currently.
We stay the course
Or let Russia prevail
If Russia gets what the want with out sacrificing anything then we’re left with a potentially spiraling escalation of arms and forward deployment of weapons in NATO Eastern Europe.

I’m discouraged that the same admin who gave us the Afghanistan withdraw is now currently in charge.
That being said the boarder land nato members appear to be determined to see this through.
But who knows.

There is really no such thing as never.

 

[Irag8er]

Maybe MacArthur(?) was right and we should have dealt with the Soviet Union right after WWII. idk. Would certainly be a different world, but who knows if it would be better.

I’m fairly certain it was Gen. Patton who wanted to deal with the Soviet Union. His argument was that we were going to have to deal with them sooner or later, and immediately after WWII would be the time . Rather prescient I would say.
Gen. MacArthur wanted to take on the Chinese during the Korean War.

 

[Publius]

Interesting perspective regarding Chinas support for Russia

China rolls back unconditional support for Russia | Financial Times

archived 24 Feb 2023 16:23:12 UTC

archive.is

 

[bartok]

Too many people live in an ideal world. Or they are willing for others to give up because it doesn't affect them personally.

Maybe MacArthur(?) was right and we should have dealt with the Soviet Union right after WWII. idk. Would certainly be a different world, but who knows if it would be better.

Should the West risk itself for Ukraine?

Are the risks even greater if something isn't done now?

Should the West risk itself for Ukraine?
Yes, but is the West actually ready to risk something for Ukraine, or when the moment comes, one has the bills, the other has the elderly parents, the other one is studying, the other one again "I was just speaking in general, not about me."
For sure, I will enjoy the moment when warmogers will start to be afraid. I say in general: I speak above all about all this kind people who don't actually have an idea that they will be involved personally. and they will be. Because when a war starts, to time to stay on the sofa ends for all.

Are the risks even greater if something isn't done now?
As to to say: are risks even greater [then a nuclear war], if something isn't done now?
I someone has idea about something worse then a nuclear war, he is welcome if he would like to make suggestions.

 

[Deleted account]

I’m fairly certain it was Gen. Patton who wanted to deal with the Soviet Union. His argument was that we were going to have to deal with them sooner or later, and immediately after WWII would be the time . Rather prescient I would say.

"Give me two weeks and I'll have us at war with these sons of bitches, and I'll make it look like it's their fault" - is what he's rumored to have said. Probably anecdotal, but yes, Patton did want to march east. Alas, neither the US, nor Europe, nor indeed the USSR was in any shape for another major war back in '45 - so we ended up where we did.

Gen. MacArthur wanted to take on the Chinese during the Korean War.

He did. He also advocated unrestricted use of nuclear weapons in the conflict, and is said to have proposed dropping a nuke on Vladivostok. In the end, he came to be viewed as a loose cannon, which probably forced Truman's hand in dismissing him. Whether we need such commanders right now is up for debate.

 

[Irag8er]

Whether we need such commanders right now is up for debate.

If not now, then very very soon, imho.

 

[bartok]

As it is well known by some of you, I have ideas quite different about the current situation and I am firmly for the so called "Appeasement", rather than the intransigence. But at some moment, we have to decide: war or not. The decision is clearly "war", so I find really coward all the warmongering we see in our societies, when this is actually intended to make Ukrianians to fight alone.
So, if we really want to make steps in order to be ready to make a war, that I accept, these facts must be put in place.

Cosa fare se l'Italia entra in guerra

In caso di entrata in guerra della NATO contro la Russia, la difesa italiana dovrebbe essere completamente riordinata, a partire dal suo vertice ed organo di comando. Se fino agli anni Novanta del secolo scorso esistevano le strutture, o almeno ne era prevista la costituzione in situazioni...

www.difesaonline.it

the article is refered to Italy, but it is effective for also other Countries.

The traslation is the following. We must do that right NOW:

In the event of NATO entering the war against Russia, the Italian defense would have to be completely reorganized, starting from its top and command body.

If until the nineties of the last century the structures existed, or at least their establishment in emergency situations was envisaged, to allow the Armed Forces to face a conflict against the Warsaw Pact, in the last thirty years of peace these have been almost dismantled.

Under current conditions, the civil and military organization of the nation would not be in the slightest condition to be able to face the ordeal of intervention in a war conflict.

Below is a series of legislative and regulatory measures deemed necessary to prepare the country for war: First of all, the COVI (joint-force operational command) should assume full control of the direction of military operations in coordination with NATO. To do this, it should be able to give operational orders to the Armed Forces, with the respective Chiefs of Staff placed directly under the Chief of Defense Staff. The latter should be an army general, the only one capable of being able to hold the command in a conflict of an eminently terrestrial nature.

The territorial organization should be reinvented and placed under the direction of the carabinieri who have a well-branched command structure throughout the national territory. All the armed bodies of the state should depend on the territorial defense command, to be fully militarized (public security and civil protection) and to be assigned to the protection of installations, infrastructures and sensitive objectives against enemy sabotage actions and acts of internal subversion.

Army forces should be mostly concentrated in the operational component of mobile defense and employment abroad under NATO command, suitably reinforced by departments made up of conscripts. This should be restored and recruits assigned to training departments and the many schools still in existence. The mass of officers and non-commissioned officers in reserve positions should flow to these bodies, to be recalled to service and used as instructor cadres for recruits.

The Supreme Defense Council, directed by the President of the Republic, should be convened on a permanent basis to give the necessary political-strategic guidelines to the COVI. A special inter-ministerial body chaired by a representative of the defense ministry should manage all supplies, imports and distribution of raw materials, including foodstuffs.

The general secretariat of defense should merge with the general directorates of the ministry of defense, in order to recover personnel and avoid unnecessary and harmful overlapping of competences. The general staff of the armed forces should become anemia and the personnel employed therein reassigned to the operational departments or to the general staff of the defence.

Civilian personnel employed in defense establishments, industries dedicated to the production of arms and those of transport companies (railways, ferries, bus lines, etc.), energy (electricity, gas and water distribution), telecommunications, postal and other services indispensable to the life of the nation should be militarized, with the placing of officers of the Armed Forces in central and peripheral directorates to control their activity.

Decree-laws limiting individual freedoms, freedom of assembly, opinion and strike should also be studied, ready for immediate enactment after due consideration. The information and security agencies (AISE and AISI) should report directly to COVI and the territorial defense command respectively, without prejudice to the control powers of DIS and COPASIR. The AISI should also take care of the control and possible censorship of the press and information bodies in order to avoid the dissemination of classified news and anti-national propaganda.

The anti-aircraft components of all the Armed Forces should depend on an aeronautical command, including those of the Army and Navy, when not deployed abroad or at sea; even the ships of greater tonnage, in fact, should integrate or constitute the air defense of the main coastal cities.

Given the poor operational efficiency of the army brigades, especially due to lack of logistics and modern weapon systems, each of them should form a tactical grouping of variable strength, in which to concentrate the most trained and motivated personnel and equipped with the most efficient means , possibly complete with ammunition and spare parts. The osmosis between brigades would also be desirable, in order to create groupings as ready for combat as possible and to be subjected to intense amalgam and inter-weapon training in white and fire in polygons and simulators. The commanders of these groupings should be granted the faculty of selecting the personnel to be employed by them, of personally granting honors in the field to the most deserving and of punishing those responsible for failings with fines.

Also for disciplinary purposes, the military prosecution should detach a military tribunal with militarized personnel at each large unit command and the carabinieri component of the military police should be significantly reinforced, up to the strength of one company for each brigade of the operating army. .

What is provocatively suggested, in addition to taking into account what comes to us from international war reports, finds full confirmation in the lessons learned from national participation in the two world conflicts, in order not to enter a hypothetical third party in the most inexperienced way.

 

[Publius]

I someone has idea about something worse then a nuclear war, he is welcome if he would like to make suggestions.

Yes I do. forced submission and subjugation.
Or is the future a 40 mil people worth the cost to the fear and loathing of doing nothing.

When invasion seemed clear there were many who defended Russia in their right to risk nuclear war to reclaim lost territory and invade Ukraine.
I here the argument this is all new territory two superpowers fighting on each other’s boarders. Well I suppose that is true. Russia initiated a war on the boarders of longstanding Allies. Allies with defensive and economic treaties.

Now all we hear is a greater war worth it.
Well It seemed to have been worth it to Russia.

We constantly hear mankind will eventually launch themselves into nuclear war eventually.

Well then if not now when and for what?

Fighting enforced subjugation of a nation when your invaded.
Or laying down under the threat of nuclear blackmail? Which is worse?
I know which is more cowardly.

Be it a nuclear bomb or destruction of a village with thermobaric bombardment.

Just remember what nation brought us to this precipice.

So yes unfortunately it is worth it.
My baby girl lives in a high risk target area for a nuclear strike. I’ve gamed the ways timing of how to get her out and it’s not good.

Part of being a human is to be willing to risk the unthinkable for what is necessary.
We’re all dust or dung beetle nurseries in the end.