• Guests may view all public nodes. However, you must be registered to post.

| UA-RU WAR | NATO Crisis | ANALYSIS & DISCUSSION

Publius said:
Or is there a third option I’m not seeing or being talked about.
Click to expand...
The third option is to do nothing with substance, which is what NATO is currently pursuing.

NATO is afraid of escalation, and Russia knows it.
 
NATO is preparing for the worst — war with Russia.
Click to expand...
During a meeting in Warsaw, British Defence Secretary Wes Streeting said the Alliance must be prepared for the worst-case scenarios.
He stressed, however, that NATO does not seek war with Russia, as it is a purely defensive alliance.
Click to expand...
“But when Putin gives assurances that he has no intentions to provoke a war with NATO, we're reminded of what he said about Ukraine only days before the invasion,” the minister warned.
What do you think? Is Putin bluffing, or is he actually planning to attack NATO?
Click to expand...
https://twitter.com/x/status/2115108645172080928
 
“But when Putin gives assurances that he has no intentions to provoke a war with NATO, we're reminded of what he said about Ukraine only days before the invasion,” the minister warned.
Click to expand...
What do you think? Is Putin bluffing, or is he actually planning to attack NATO?
Click to expand...

I think I am more concerned about what that Alliance is thinking.

The British Defence Secretary's statement makes me uncomfortable.
 
DEFCON Warning System said:
I think I am more concerned about what that Alliance is thinking.

The British Defence Secretary's statement makes me uncomfortable.
Click to expand...
He makes a valid point about Russia's statements prior to their invasion of Ukraine.
 
RiffRaff said:
He makes a valid point about Russia's statements prior to their invasion of Ukraine.
Click to expand...
None here would argue that Russias invasion of Ukraine was justified at any level. Now that I’ve said that other than bombastic rhetoric from kremlin acolytes can any say they see anything or capability from Russia to attack a nato nation proactively.

I am definitely getting some August of 1914 vibes.

Here is the real danger as I see it. Russias NOT conventionally strong enough to defeat NATO forces even in the Baltics. So any attempt to escalate beyond where we’re at right now by either side risk a ride on a slip and slide to another European war.

I know this is a contradiction to my maintaining NATO troops need or probably more accurately needed to engage on the ground in Ukraine 2-3 years ago.
I believe Ukraines territorial integrity could at least have been frozen in place.

Russia has demonstrated they were willing to go to war and bleed. NATO has been a limp whatever since 2021.
Now we have major nato nations running around with conflicting interests, positions, and rhetoric.

It’s a nightmare in the making.
Shit it’s just like 1914. What European leader needs to be assassinated in any of the Slavic nations that might kick off a civil war like the Serbo-Bosnian conflict. What would Putin do if Europe sent troops into that region right now. Or Romania.
The longer this war continues the worse the sectarian division will get in SE Europe.

As far as NATO troops to Ukraine now I don’t know if it would work.
Putin didn’t need a red line he needed a steel wall in 22 or 23.

So I do not see Russia proactively escalating in Europe. But I definitely see them reactively escalating in Europe.

For myself after watching nato vacillations and anemic defense spending ever since Crimean. I’m less and less inclined to continue supporting NATO if Russia where to retaliate at this time.

Great Britain’s defense minister is saying Britian has a 1000 days to prepare for war?
www.ibtimes.co.uk

Britain Has 1,000 Days to Prepare for War as Defence Warning Raises Fears Over Growing Threats

Defence Secretary Wes Streeting says Britain must improve its military capabilities, national resilience and emergency preparedness within just over 1,000 days to deter potential threats.
www.ibtimes.co.uk www.ibtimes.co.uk

Great Britian has < 80000 land forces compared to Ukraines 1,000,000. As it stands now Ukraine would kick the shit of Britain.
 
Last edited:
GBS61 said:
What?
Click to expand...
I’m not saying Ukraine and Britain would go to war. I am only comparing their military sizes as a matter of capabilities.

www.globalmilitary.net

GlobalMilitary.net

Tracking world military forces through open-source intelligence
www.globalmilitary.net www.globalmilitary.net

Britian has 250 main battle tanks, Ukraine 1000+.
Let’s not forget all the experience Ukraine now has with low intensity drone warfare.
I’m excluding nuclear because I’m assuming everyone would like to avoid that scenario.
It’s a question of what Britian could bring to a land war battle compared to what Ukraine already is.
 
Publius said:
I’m not saying Ukraine and Britain would go to war. I am only comparing their military sizes as a matter of capabilities.

www.globalmilitary.net

GlobalMilitary.net

Tracking world military forces through open-source intelligence
www.globalmilitary.net www.globalmilitary.net

Britian has 250 main battle tanks, Ukraine 1000+.
Let’s not forget all the experience Ukraine now has with low intensity drone warfare.
I’m excluding nuclear because I’m assuming everyone would like to avoid that scenario.
It’s a question of what Britian could bring to a land war battle compared to what Ukraine already is.
Click to expand...
Oh, excuse me—I’ve edited my post. I’m surprised by this information; as it turns out, Great Britain doesn’t actually have that many more soldiers than we do here in Canada. The Canadian Army (our land forces) has about 44,000 to 47,000 personnel.

Oh, it’s dreadful how weak we are.
 
GBS61 said:
If Russia is convinced that the USA will not honor Article 5 of NATO, and if they believe that Europe is weak without the USA, then they will do what you fear.
Click to expand...
It is a risk and it’s not a topic I like to contemplate.
But given Russias inability to overpower Ukraine do you honestly believe Russia sees a path forward where they could overpower any nation that has nato troops and air deployments in them.

I guess where I’m having issues right now is that there seems to be a headlong rush to exacerbate the issue with Russia. Russias this, Russias that. Russians I’m sure are saying the same thing about the west.
All while NATO is so anemic most of their nations could barely field a peacekeeping force.
And complaining and having fits because Trump has tried to deescalate an expensive war in both blood and gold.

NATO as it now stands is not in real jeopardy of Russia initiating a war with them. And NATO was never truly committed to making Ukraine a nato fight so why are we all talking about escalation?

Who’s wagging the effing dogs tail here.
 
Publius said:
It is a risk and it’s not a topic I like to contemplate.
Click to expand...
Of course! But even if we talk about it, it doesn't change anything, because it’s the leaders who make the decisions.
If you’re afraid, well, then don’t read the news and don’t come to this forum.
Personally, I’m not afraid; the chances of them attacking North America are slim. On the other hand, if I were in Europe,
I’d be a bit worried.
 
GBS61 said:
Of course! But even if we talk about it, it doesn't change anything, because it’s the leaders who make the decisions.
If you’re afraid, well, then don’t read the news and don’t come to this forum.
Personally, I’m not afraid; the chances of them attacking North America are slim. On the other hand, if I were in Europe,
I’d be a bit worried.
Click to expand...
We are
 
GBS61 said:
Of course! But even if we talk about it, it doesn't change anything, because it’s the leaders who make the decisions.
If you’re afraid, well, then don’t read the news and don’t come to this forum.
Personally, I’m not afraid; the chances of them attacking North America are slim. On the other hand, if I were in Europe,
I’d be a bit worried.
Click to expand...
There is a difference between Russia pursuing a favorable conclusion to the war in Ukraine. Without a marginally favorable conclusion they have little to gain by stopping now.

That is not even in the same world as them invading an Eastern European NATO state where nato forces are already deployed with interoperability with those nations military with preplanned defense response plans in place and trained for.

I’ve laid out why I see the differences between Russia continuing to attack in Ukraine as opposed to invading a nato nation.

So again we can continue to pour money into Ukraine while Ukrainians die. All out of principle. Or we can try and negotiate a solution.

Or do you believe Ukraine can prevail as long as the west keeps sending them weapons and aid.
All accomplished without direct NATO intervention?
 
Publius said:
That is not even in the same world as them invading an Eastern European NATO state where nato forces are already deployed with interoperability with those nations military with preplanned defense response plans in place and trained for.
Click to expand...
That's quite an extreme scenario. How would NATO respond to direct Russian military/clandestine strikes resulting in casualties? Or if Putin blew up a few Ukraine-bound ammunition planes, or plants making weapons for Ukraine. That's how things get out of control.
 
DEFCON Warning System said:
What would be the solution that does not encourage Russia to just do this again somewhere else?
Click to expand...
By next time do you mean if this were to be tried against a NATO member or non nato member. Either way you prepare by entering into military sales or transfers, training, and signet. Accelerate multi or bilateral treaties.

Better to prevent the next fire than failing or not being able to successfully fight the one that’s already started.
The choice and outcome of war is never a purely binary question. A victor can win and still lose.
Sadly the only clear loser will be the Ukrainians. If that’s unacceptable for the west then they need to back it up with force on force. That none are willing to do this is a betrayal of Ukraine.
I am not happy about this but it tells us all we need to know.

Ive advocated sending in troops earlier. If the US had sent I troops and planes how many NATO members would have followed suit in meaningful way.

Want to know how to prevent the next one. Answer what should have been done in 2013 and 14.
 
Sentry said:
That's quite an extreme scenario. How would NATO respond to direct Russian military/clandestine strikes resulting in casualties? Or if Putin blew up a few Ukraine-bound ammunition planes, or plants making weapons for Ukraine. That's how things get out of control.
Click to expand...
A military strike on a NATO member would be an article 5. And questions of getting out of hand are in the rear view mirror.
Why is everyone is bent on arguing that seeking a negotiated settlement in Ukraine is the same as an abandoning a NATO member. Not going to war with force on force against Russia over Ukraine is not the same thing as refusing to defend a nato member.
This whole argument that not wanting to continue to support a non treaty member with no end in sight vs not defending NATO members is illusory at best. It’s an unsupported argument based on media narratives and assumptions.

Your correct it does open the door for things to get out of hand.
Has anyone answered what we must do to secure a victory for Ukraine?
Most of those options also have opportunities for things to get out of hand as well.
are we going to wait to get involved until Kiev is being shelled neighborhood by neighborhood?

If you read the totality of my comments on this it is get there and fight. Especially if we’re so “concerned” about who’s next.
 
Publius said:
So again we can continue to pour money into Ukraine while Ukrainians die. All out of principle. Or we can try and negotiate a solution.

Or do you believe Ukraine can prevail as long as the west keeps sending them weapons and aid.
All accomplished without direct NATO intervention?
Click to expand...
No.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom