NATO without the US

[Officer of Engineers]

The basic problem with your argument is that the same problem applies even with the US as a member of NATO. If you question whether the UK or France would use nuclear weapons in response to a nuclear attack by Russia on the Baltic States (your example) how certain can anyone be that (assuming it was still a member of NATO) the US would respond to a nuclear attack on say Berlin or perhaps even Toronto with nuclear weapons?

Because historically, the Americans have cocked the nuclear trigger - more than once and each time, it was the Soviets who backed down. The Brits and French have never played such brinkmanship.

My argument is that beyond deterring an attack by the US/NATO proactive use of nuclear weapons doesn't gain a great deal for the user because even if you win? You have to bare the clean up cost. The advantage of having nukes is that they deter anyone from nuking you. Outside of that? They're terrible as a means of conquering territory.

Doesn't change the fact that we have plans to fight a nuclear war on both sides. NATO PHP has the Czech plan to nuke all the way into France. And we had to counter that with nuclear plans of our own.

 

[Double Edge]

Hi DE, did you happen to notice my question above? Do you still think that Russia is "liberating" Ukraine?

Not hijacking this thread

Where then?

 

[TopHatter]

Not hijacking this thread

Where then?

It's a simple question. I'll delete afterwards to clean up the thread.

 

[Double Edge]

It's a simple question. I'll delete afterwards to clean up the thread.t

Why the question?

I see Ukraine from the Kremlins pov. They're the aggrieved party. They're the belligerent. Want to understand conflict follow the belligerent.

Want to understand Iraq, ask Americans
Ukraine? Russians
Gaza? Israelis

That is what I mean by follow the belligerent.

You're not my target for Ukraine. It's Russians. Whether I can get right what Putin is doing. Without living there or speaking their language.

I've not followed more since its been stalemated and moved on to other things

Now that Trump wants to fix things. I want to note that the starting point in the agreement is Russia is holding on to territories it won.

There's no other way forward

Project Ukraine is a Democrat thing. Republicans don't see Russia as a threat. How can it be with half of India's GDP.

So when Trump says Ukraine would never happened if he was in charge. That is credible. Whether him or any other Republican leader.

 

[TopHatter]

Why the question?

I see Ukraine from the Kremlins pov. They're the aggrieved party. They're the belligerent. Want to understand conflict follow the belligerent.

Clarify something for me if you would please:

Who is the aggrieved party?

Who is the belligerent?

 

[Double Edge]

Who is the aggrieved party?

Russia. No cooperation from nato on a security framework that took their concerns into consideration. Until things got to a point where the Russians had to do something

Very paranoid people because there are few natural boundaries. Difficult to defend. Historically two invasions from Ukraine already. So buffers are important for them.

Sell Alaska to the Americans to block any English interference with their far east.

The SU was a buffer around Russia.

The Warsaw pact another with NATO.

With present Ukraine there was never a clear statement that Ukraine would not be a nato member.

Who is the belligerent?

One who started the conflict. Russia.

 

[TopHatter]

Russia. No cooperation from nato on a security framework that took their concerns into consideration. Until things got to a point where the Russians had to do something

Interesting way of looking at it....

But what I want to know is, and what my original question was, to put it as plainly as possible:

Do you still believe the Russians are legitimately liberating, i.e. freeing a place or people from a genuine enemy occupation, those Ukrainian towns. Is that an incorrect assumption?

This is a Yes or No question, quite simple for you to answer. Please do so. Thank you.

 

[tbm3fan]

Now that Trump wants to fix things. I want to note that the starting point in the agreement is Russia is holding on to territories it won.

There's no other way forward

So if Pakistan attacked and won all of Kashmir, and the only way forward for peace, is to accept the territories it won from India you would be Ok with that? Am I following your thinking on this?

Project Ukraine is a Democrat thing. Republicans don't see Russia as a threat. How can it be with half of India's GDP.

So when Trump says Ukraine would never happened if he was in charge. That is credible. Whether him or any other Republican leader.

This is so beyond credible I see no answer here as it sounds, to me, like you are Trump acolyte. Only Shiva knows.

 

[TopHatter]

This is so beyond credible I see no answer here as it sounds, to me, like you are Trump acolyte. Only Shiva knows.

I have a funny feeling he won't be returning, much less actually providing a direct answer and not weaseling and squirming his way around the question.

 

[omon]

I'm under impression NATO was crated after ww2, not as a deterrent against USSR, but to make sure European countries do not fight each other.

 

[Officer of Engineers]

The original purpose of NATO was to keep the Russians out, the Germans down, and the Americans in.

 

[Steph]

In 1949, European countries (except for the USSR) could not have fought each other even if they had wanted to.
NATO was created after the communist takeovers in Poland (1947) and Czechoslovakia (1948), after the Berlin Blockade, and during the Greek Civil War. This is enough to understand that the objective was to halt the Soviet advance.

 

[Steph]

I don't believe that the scenario of a nuclear confrontation is the most important if the US leaves NATO.
What is certain is that NATO's deterrent will become less powerful, but that doesn't mean Russia will use nuclear weapons. Since the beginning of the war in Ukraine, Russia has repeatedly used the nuclear threat, without ever carrying it out. I think it will continue in the same way, except that this threat will be more credible, at least until NATO provides an equivalent response (which is likely to be very long).
In my opinion, Russia will continue and intensify hybrid warfare to dismantle the Alliance's resistance, destabilize neighboring countries, introduce soldiers without uniforms, and then "liberate oppressed minorities" in the Baltic states or Moldova, as they did in Ukraine.
And it will be NATO's problem to determine what it is prepared to concede when facing this threat.

 

[Monash]

I don't believe that the scenario of a nuclear confrontation is the most important if the US leaves NATO.
What is certain is that NATO's deterrent will become less powerful, but that doesn't mean Russia will use nuclear weapons. Since the beginning of the war in Ukraine, Russia has repeatedly used the nuclear threat, without ever carrying it out. I think it will continue in the same way, except that this threat will be more credible, at least until NATO provides an equivalent response (which is likely to be very long).
In my opinion, Russia will continue and intensify hybrid warfare to dismantle the Alliance's resistance, destabilize neighboring countries, introduce soldiers without uniforms, and then "liberate oppressed minorities" in the Baltic states or Moldova, as they did in Ukraine.
And it will be NATO's problem to determine what it is prepared to concede when facing this threat.

I agree with this bit particularly, at least while Putin is still running the show. In part it's because (thanks to the war in Ukraine) Russia's military is not in a fit state to even contemplate a conventional war with western Europe. And even after the war ends it will take years to rebuilt/remodel the armed services. This is particularly so given what will almost certainly be ongoing sanctions on the sale of western military technologies to Russia (dual use tech is another problem) and Europe's own military rearmament efforts.

All of the above being true? Hybrid warfare, misinformation and destabilization operations are the only tools left if Russia wishes to try and weaken the western alliance. We can only hope that whoever replaces Putin will be smart enough to see where 'Putin being Putin' has got Russia, how much weaker the country is now and how the idea of returning Russia to a position on the world stage it occupied during the Cold War is pipe dream. If whoever takes over does recognize that history has moved on? There's a chance they will try to rebuild bridges and end any pretense of rebuilding the old Soviet Union. Whoever it is will have way too many problems on his hands to solve anyway.

 

[Officer of Engineers]

I don't believe that the scenario of a nuclear confrontation is the most important if the US leaves NATO.
What is certain is that NATO's deterrent will become less powerful, but that doesn't mean Russia will use nuclear weapons. Since the beginning of the war in Ukraine, Russia has repeatedly used the nuclear threat, without ever carrying it out.

Putin never issued a nuclear threat. No warning orders were issued. No nukes were ordered to standby launch. Compare the UKR to Sino-Soviet and Arab-Israeli where Soviet nuclear release authority was issued to IRBM battery COs and SSBN Captains. The UKR was NEVER on par with the Cuban Missile Crisis, the Berlin Wall, Sino-Soviet, nor Arab-Israeli.

I think it will continue in the same way, except that this threat will be more credible, at least until NATO provides an equivalent response (which is likely to be very long).
In my opinion, Russia will continue and intensify hybrid warfare to dismantle the Alliance's resistance, destabilize neighboring countries, introduce soldiers without uniforms, and then "liberate oppressed minorities" in the Baltic states or Moldova, as they did in Ukraine.
And it will be NATO's problem to determine what it is prepared to concede when facing this threat.

Putin goes his equivalent to DEFCON 3. What then? Consider this. Only 25% of either the British or the French nuclear force is ready for launch at any given time. Only 1 out 4 British SSBNs and 1 out of 4 French SSBNs are out on patrol, Translation - only a combined total of 200 British and French nukes are available for launch at any given time.

British and French nuclear coverage of the rest of NATO is extremely lacking!

 

[Officer of Engineers]

All of the above being true? Hybrid warfare, misinformation and destabilization operations are the only tools left if Russia wishes to try and weaken the western alliance. We can only hope that whoever replaces Putin will be smart enough to see where 'Putin being Putin' has got Russia, how much weaker the country is now and how the idea of returning Russia to a position on the world stage it occupied during the Cold War is pipe dream. If whoever takes over does recognize that history has moved on? There's a chance they will try to rebuild bridges and end any pretense of rebuilding the old Soviet Union. Whoever it is will have way too many problems on his hands to solve anyway.

Hybrid warefare is another word for balls! How much can you push before the other guy brings out his guns!

 

[Officer of Engineers]

NATO chief says Europe should ‘keep on dreaming’ if it thinks it can defend itself without the US

By Caitlin Danaher, CNN (CNN) — NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte has told Europe it should “keep on dreaming” if it thinks it can defend itself without the support of the United States. “If anyone thinks here again that the European Union, or Europe as a whole, can defend itself without the US...

kesq.com

 

[Monash]

Hybrid warefare is another word for balls! How much can you push before the other guy brings out his guns!

Or his sanctions, his boarding operations his tech embargoes, his expulsion of Russian diplomats etc etc. Not everything has to be responded to in the first instance with guns! Here's a thought, what about going with your own hybrid warfare operation instead, along with a message to the effect 'we stop when you do'!

 

[Officer of Engineers]

Or his sanctions, his boarding operations his tech embargoes, his expulsion of Russian diplomats etc etc. Not everything has to be responded to in the first instance with guns! Here's a thought, what about going with your own hybrid warfare operation instead, along with a message to the effect 'we stop when you do'!

Here's a thought. MY first and only resort is my guns!

 

[Officer of Engineers]

Do you still believe the Russians are legitimately liberating, i.e. freeing a place or people from a genuine enemy occupation, those Ukrainian towns. Is that an incorrect assumption?

Not to get into your arguments with DE but the LNR and DNR do consider it liberation to the point of committing 125K+ men to the 2022 Russian invasion. The LNR and DNR hate Kiev with a passion to the point of open war - the Donbass War.