🗣️ | UA-NATO/RU | Crisis Environment | ANALYSIS OF REPORTS

[william]

I wonder if the USA would respect Article 5 of NATO assuming that Great Britain requests the activation of Article 5.

I don't think Britian would even have to request it. IMO

 

[GBS61]

I don't think Britian would even have to request it. IMO

You're not answering the question!

 

[Charmender]

I wonder if the USA would respect Article 5 of NATO assuming that Great Britain requests the activation of Article 5.

If Trump wanted to quit NATO (officially or by ignoring a call), he would have already done so, or provided clear undeniable signaling.
Not the case, quite the opposite as the Trump's administration is investing a lot of effort in presenting "NATO 3.0".
Putin knows it, as much as he knows that with or without the US, he cannot start a war with the UK, not even practically even if he wanted to (not without losing it of course).

 

[GBS61]

he phrase "They’re going to hang me" is a private remark Vladimir Putin reportedly made to an associate, according to revelations shared by the British weekly *The Economist*.

This statement reflects the Russian president's personal anxiety regarding the risk of military failure in Ukraine and the destabilization of his regime.

What lies behind this remark?

Fear of the inner circle: The pronoun "they" does not refer to his Western or Ukrainian adversaries, but rather to members of his own elite or security apparatus. In the Russian political system, the regime tolerates violence but has little tolerance for strategic failure. An internal coup remains his greatest fear, especially in the wake of Yevgeny Prigozhin’s mutiny. The Muammar Gaddafi trauma: Vladimir Putin has always been deeply affected by the 2011 fall and lynching of the Libyan leader.

This fear of a violent end drives much of his authoritarian behavior. Growing paranoia in the Kremlin: Reflecting these fears, Putin signed a decree increasing the size of his close protection detail (the FSO), which now exceeds 800 agents. He has quadrupled his security arrangements since 2022 and reportedly frequently leaves Moscow for ultra-secure bunkers.

Political and military consequences

Far from driving him to surrender, this fear of being overthrown actually pushes him to escalate the conflict. Analysts point out that, to save his life and his regime, Putin refuses to end the war without securing at least a minimal victory, such as the total conquest of the Donbas. This is prompting Moscow to consider new waves of military mobilization (involving 300,000 to 400,000 troops) and to intensify hybrid attacks against Europe.

My opinion: he might attack NATO to save his own skin—
or if he gets hanged, the result is the same.

 

[Snowfall]

he phrase "They’re going to hang me" is a private remark Vladimir Putin reportedly made to an associate, according to revelations shared by the British weekly *The Economist*.

This statement reflects the Russian president's personal anxiety regarding the risk of military failure in Ukraine and the destabilization of his regime.

What lies behind this remark?

Fear of the inner circle: The pronoun "they" does not refer to his Western or Ukrainian adversaries, but rather to members of his own elite or security apparatus. In the Russian political system, the regime tolerates violence but has little tolerance for strategic failure. An internal coup remains his greatest fear, especially in the wake of Yevgeny Prigozhin’s mutiny. The Muammar Gaddafi trauma: Vladimir Putin has always been deeply affected by the 2011 fall and lynching of the Libyan leader.

This fear of a violent end drives much of his authoritarian behavior. Growing paranoia in the Kremlin: Reflecting these fears, Putin signed a decree increasing the size of his close protection detail (the FSO), which now exceeds 800 agents. He has quadrupled his security arrangements since 2022 and reportedly frequently leaves Moscow for ultra-secure bunkers.

Political and military consequences

Far from driving him to surrender, this fear of being overthrown actually pushes him to escalate the conflict. Analysts point out that, to save his life and his regime, Putin refuses to end the war without securing at least a minimal victory, such as the total conquest of the Donbas. This is prompting Moscow to consider new waves of military mobilization (involving 300,000 to 400,000 troops) and to intensify hybrid attacks against Europe.

My opinion: he might attack NATO to save his own skin—
or if he gets hanged, the result is the same.

Yeah this article was bs, he allegedly said that phrase at some point within the last four years according to the article but they have zero attribution as to when. It was specifically a reference to if he failed the capture the Donbas as well, which is why it makes even less sense if he said it now considering he’s now annexed Kherson and Zaphorizia as well. The most likely interpretation I’ve seen is the quote was likely said in 2022.

 

[DEFCON Warning System]

But my opportunities to find the time for it are (due to private reasons) more limited that I'd like them to be.

Hope everything is okay.

 

[novaB]

Hope everything is okay.

Yes, overall it is, it's just a stressfull time at the moment - but thank you for your consideration and for asking!

 

[Publius]

The question is though: which is true?

Pravda vs istina

 

[Publius]

Safe isn't the word. "Safer", maybe.

Putin is “safer” because he’s a survivor and wants to retain power and position.
Escalating further has to many unknowns.

If a truly wingnut were to replace him they would be faced with two problems. Yes they could absolutely launch a number of espionage and subversive attacks. They could chew on the boarder of Finland or the Baltics. But it’s a question of how much could they really accomplish. It of course would be damaging and raise tensions between Russia and NATO.
But it also carry’s the risk of an article 5 situation
In this current state of affairs could tbey really hope to successfully subvert a NATO nation through insurgent and Instabity actions?

Only one way it could and that would be if a NATO state or states waffles.

The other option if a wingnut wanted to escalate would the oligarchy tolerate that.
Putin is at the center of the oligarchy not the fringes like some of these outspoken Russian politicians.
They serve a purpose at muddying the waters. But as future leaders.

Not much has changed since last year.

Russia escalates Won’t happen because all they need to do is just keep grinding until most of Ukraine is gone.

Or NATO escalates and deploys troops.
Also likely not going to happen

OR there is an unpalatable peace treaty negotiated.

At this point Russias will just keep grinding away.
It’s a tragedy that could have been avoided.

 

[RiffRaff]

I wonder if the USA would respect Article 5 of NATO assuming that Great Britain requests the activation of Article 5.

The US is too unpredictable with its allies at this point to know one way or the other. Might just depend on which day of the week it is.

 

[DEFCON Warning System]

Might just depend on which day of the week it is.

There is a lot of truth in this. A lot of what the US is doing is bluster, but it can be hard to read what the US is just blowing and what it actually believes. Allies are having the same difficulty. So are enemies.

That is what makes it more dangerous. Misinterpretation.

The problem is, when it comes to allies of the US, the US has a legitimate gripe. So it now comes down to how far the US is willing to push it, and at what cost?

 

[william]

There is a lot of truth in this. A lot of what the US is doing is bluster, but it can be hard to read what the US is just blowing and what it actually believes. Allies are having the same difficulty. So are enemies. I think this is done on purpose. IMO

That is what makes it more dangerous. Misinterpretation. Agreed

The problem is, when it comes to allies of the US, the US has a legitimate gripe. So it now comes down to how far the US is willing to push it, and at what cost?

TACO or WAR? We've seen both.

 

[william]

It's not the US the world has to worry about when it comes to attacking or defending an ally.

Global News seriously asked a U.S. admiral about Trump militarily invading Canada. His response: "Sure. Want my battle plans for the Martians too?" That’s the level of absurdity we’re dealing with.

https://twitter.com/x/status/2095224556583829969

• The post shares a video clip from the 2026 Indo-Pacific Chiefs of Defense Conference in Victoria, BC, where US Admiral Samuel Paparo responds to a Global News reporter's question on whether he would obey a Trump order to invade Canada by calling it "utterly preposterous" and likening it to planning an attack on Martians.
• Paparo affirmed he follows commander-in-chief orders but stressed Canada is a close ally, with the exchange occurring amid collapsed US-Canada trade talks and Trump's public comments on annexing Canada as the 51st state.
• Author @MarcNixon24 uses the clip to argue Canadian media is fueling "Trump invasion fantasies" and TDS, portraying it as part of a broader fear-driven narrative despite robust US-Canada military cooperation.

 

[Snowfall]

It's not the US the world has to worry about when it comes to attacking or defending an ally.

The crazy thing is I wouldn’t put it past the U.S. to have some form of military planning for an attack emanating from mars or another planet more generally.

 

[DEFCON Warning System]

Global News seriously asked a U.S. admiral about Trump militarily invading Canada. His response: "Sure. Want my battle plans for the Martians too?" That’s the level of absurdity we’re dealing with.

That's the answer that kind of question deserved.

Though...those sneaky Martians with their Illudium Q-36 Explosive Space Modulator, maybe it's something we need to think about.

 

[GBS61]

It's not the US the world has to worry about when it comes to attacking or defending an ally.

Personally, I never thought the USA would invade Canada militarily.

 

[DEFCON Warning System]

Personally, I never thought the USA would invade Canada militarily.

Nobody seriously thinks that.

 

[Charmender]

The gripe is pretty simple, how do you enforce NATO spending targets if there is zero downside to not meeting it? If you’re Spain for example, why would you ever bother to meet the spending target when NATO will defend you in the extremely unlikely case something happens to your country considering its geographical position. So Spain is a net beneficiary. Let’s look at Poland, Poland is going to invest heavily in defense because of proximity to Russia, NATO spending commitments don’t really matter because they will exceed it anyway. So they are a net contributor. If you’re NATO should you treat them the same?

Exactly.
And that’s what NATO 3.0 is.
It’s not just about money but also practical involvement.
For example Italy is not meeting the spending target before 2030 (5%).
But still it’s a country very involved around the globe within the NATO peacetime and peacekeeping operations.
Spain is one of the freeloaders.

But if Trump, the US, really wanted to derail The NATO train, the signals we would be seeing would be very different.
And surely not a commitment of the US officials and Trump in person in “reforming” the alliance.

 

[GBS61]

Exactly.
And that’s what NATO 3.0 is.
It’s not just about money but also practical involvement.
For example Italy is not meeting the spending target before 2030 (5%).
But still it’s a country very involved around the globe within the NATO peacetime and peacekeeping operations.
Spain is one of the freeloaders.

But if Trump, the US, really wanted to derail The NATO train, the signals we would be seeing would be very different.
And surely not a commitment of the US officials and Trump in person in “reforming” the alliance.

NATO 3.0 will not materialize under the current administration:

Spain is absolutely right.
The United States conducted large-scale joint operations with Israel against Iranian targets without any prior consultation with its NATO allies.

Washington subsequently demanded that Europeans provide logistical support and open their military bases to carry out strikes. Faced with the refusal of countries like Spain to be dragged into an out-of-area conflict without consultation, the Pentagon labeled the allies' attitude "shameful."

The Colby Doctrine: "America First" applied to defense. Driven by theorists like Elbridge Colby, the NATO 3.0 doctrine no longer treats Europe as an equal partner in decision-making, but rather as a secondary regional theater: The pivot to the Pacific—US priorities have unilaterally shifted toward the Indo-Pacific to counter China. Burden-shifting without decision-sharing—Washington requires Europeans to pay for and arm themselves to handle the continent's conventional defense alone (the 5% of GDP target by 2035 demanded at the Ankara summit), while retaining control over global strategy and the nuclear umbrella.

The allies' response: A quest for autonomy. This chronic lack of consultation is prompting European nations to organize. Faced with American unpredictability, NATO's Nuclear Planning Group issued a statement reaffirming that Europe's independent strategic nuclear forces (France and the UK) constitute the "ultimate guarantee of Allied security." For many member states, NATO 3.0 demonstrates the need to accelerate the creation of European strategic autonomy, as there is no longer any guarantee that Washington will consult its partners before altering the continent's security architecture.

 

[GBS61]

Russia has just struck the Kyiv airport. They are also striking the Golden Gate area—where diplomats live—for the first time. Just as US officials arrive to discuss peace, Russia is bombing the city. This is no mistake. It is a deliberate attempt to derail peace talks and make Kyiv too dangerous for them to take place. We must never again listen to Russia’s false pacifist rhetoric.

Well, the US President is downplaying it.