What a pathetic society.
2 Likes
When do we reach the same threshold that NATO used to justify its intervention in Yugoslavia , or is it really only going to respond once Putin launches a nuke ?
2 Likes
Yes. Or mass murder on industrial scale.
All along NATO has been supportive, but to a point. Not direct conflict, but arming Ukraine, and only then to a point, presumably so as not to risk direct confrontation and escalation past the nuclear threshold.
Even with partial support, Ukraine has fought heroically and bloodied Russia’s nose.
So Russia is stuck between a rock, and a hard place, and the way they are playing their hand now is to escalate. Hopefully it backfires, in numerous ways. Hopefully Ukraine will be armed further, to hit them harder. Hopefully global condemnation of Russia is stronger, and more unified, than ever before. And finally, the hope is that enough Russian people will see the madness of all this, and will turn on Putin and put an end to this themselves.
Once the nuclear threshold is crossed, even a tactical nuke, the consequences are much harder to predict, and obviously a whole lot more serious.
When NATO intervened in the Balkans it was on the back of large scale war crimes, though crucially, in an arena where nuclear weapons were not potentially in play.
1 Like
As I remember it , part of the justification for the intervention was to prevent a humanitarian crisis. With tens of thousands of civilians already dead , many more abducted and taken to Russia , and millions of refugees , there can be little argument that the standard has already been met.
Also another reason given was to prevent a wider conflagration and prevent regional instability. We are hearing now of a joint invasion from the north coming from Belarus. Would that be enough to provoke a response ?
Not sure. Probably not. With the significant difference being nuclear weapons.
But I definitely see NATO countries ramping up arming Ukraine, as the current German air defence move shows.
1 Like
Really all that shows is that NATO countries are a few steps behind.
The quantity of air defense sent by NATO should have been massive from the start considering Russia’s dominance in that domain.
It’s no longer possible to be in reaction real strategic and tactical hardware needs to be flooding in so that this might come to an end one day and with the ‘right’ outcome for Ukraine, NATO and most importantly Europe as a whole.
2 Likes
I agree NATO are a few steps behind, but since it’s not their war, it makes sense that they can only be reactive and not proactive. It’s a cagey game.
I hate it, and it is horrible for the Ukrainian people. But if NATO goes balls deep, this thing is going nuclear.
Maybe the calculus is to arm Ukraine enough to be able to inflict enough losses on Russia that it tips the domestic scale and their own people take care of regime change internally, and at that point, there might be a way out, for everyone.
The problem isn’t that the West are reactive, the problem is that some Western countries, many actually, that aid Ukraine, does not seem to have a plan ready when Russia escalates; but must formulate an answer on the go. An answer should have been formulated, in my opinion, before Russia escalates, so the reaction can be relatively instant. There should ideally be several plans at the ready, to counter possible Russian actions. I do at least expect that of the United States.
1 Like
1 Like
There is no wisdom or historical president for your reply.
You are cagey when you spy. Not when taking sides in a war. Just look how Russia is playing it, NATO is the enemy!
Agreeed to a point. There should be plans formulated at the ready. This is not deception the Russians are doing, it’s overt and can be calculated and countered with planned responses short of war . Escalation in arms delivery, the substance of the arms delivered and so on.
Professor Lewis which I posted above, had one. And a relatively worthy one.
3 Likes
A video to comfort my mind (sure, it’s perverse, but it is what it is, at least I am sane enough to recognice the perversity in taking pleasure from such)
2 Likes
I agree that in an ideal world there would be a contingency plan for these types of scenarios. However, how do you plan/agree on something when the protagonist’s resources/allies are so important/volatile. Putin was already weary of NATO and used their expansion as justification for his actions, if he hears that the Western powers are already planning for this, it could heighten his paranoia.
My issue to the reaction of the West, is that the ‘two’ of the biggest voices, Germany and France have been so reluctant to provide Military/intel assistance to Ukraine. Unfortunately, in my opinion, their hard influence/power has over the years restricted the will of other countries to speak out against them, question their policies.
Can you prove that for intel particularly when it comes to France?
I agree France’s quanity military aid is worrying, then I’ve been worried about the military direction for some time.
That’s impossible to know, but it is known that French and German intel on Russia was very bad prior to 24 February, as despite Anglo warnings and signaling as well as massive Russian troop movements, both intelligence servives refused to belive war was possible and was caught totally off guard.
If France delivers crucial intel to Ukraine now, one cannot say, since Ukraine mentions it not and neither does France. It would be pure guess work.
3 Likes
My point is that it’s good, actually positive, if Russia knows what will happen. It means less risk for miscalculations. Miscalculations are dangerous. Just ask Putin who invaded Ukraine thinking it would be over in a month. Miscalculations between nuclear states are worse. It is good, mostly, (but not always) if what the West is willing to do is telegraphed in advance to Russia so that they can calculate if it’s worth the risk of escalation.
Letting Russia know Terror Bombing carries a cost of escalation is positive. It is also logical that Terror Bombing provokes escalation of types of weapon systems given to Ukraine, such as prescribed by Professor Lewis above.
My opinion.
2 Likes
France doesn’t really have the sort of intel that is useful now - pre-war, the conventional wisdom was that the Europeans had better human intelligence networks than the US, but for information like troop locations, etc., they rely on American raw intel (satellite and similar, intercepts) and apply their own analysis to it. The credibility of French and German intelligence will take years to recover from their pontificating at the beginning of this year.
Also of note that neither France nor Germany gets the same level of access to American raw intel that the other Five Eyes do.
5 Likes
Yes, I can only nod as it confirms everything I have been reading for a year or so.