We're already in WW3

[NWRatCon]

A BBC article, Ukraine: How might the war end? Five scenarios, posits five scenarios for the war, ignoring the obvious 6th - from a short or long conflict, to a European war, a diplomatic solution, to Putin being deposed - assiduously avoiding the reality we're already in. Putin wants a conflagration. He wants a confrontation with the west. He wants destruction of Europe. I think he has a terminal condition, and wants the world to burn if he's not in it.

But I think the sooner we acknowledge reality, the better choices we can make. Europe is already in the war, but they don't want to admit it. Poland, Hungary, and other European countries are being flooded with refugees. That's part of Putin's plan. He sees the inhumanity as a tool to weaken Europe and the West. The more atrociously he behaves, the more inept the West appears, and the more he feels he's getting away with it. He cannot be appeased. He wants us to grovel.

I think it is already beyond time for a no-fly zone to be imposed. I'm no hawk, but I am a realist. It's going to happen, so we might as well do it now, rather than later. We've already failed by allowing Russian forces to take two nuclear sites. We cannot allow more. The world is at stake. He'll engineer a "nuclear disaster" unless his own troops deny him that. We can't rely on their inherent morality. They've already demonstrated that is folly.

The real danger is the nuclear sub fleet. They can wreak havoc to international shipping, and will whether we "provoke" it or not.

 

[Evilroddy]

A BBC article, Ukraine: How might the war end? Five scenarios, posits five scenarios for the war, ignoring the obvious 6th - from a short or long conflict, to a European war, a diplomatic solution, to Putin being deposed - assiduously avoiding the reality we're already in. Putin wants a conflagration. He wants a confrontation with the west. He wants destruction of Europe. I think he has a terminal condition, and wants the world to burn if he's not in it.

But I think the sooner we acknowledge reality, the better choices we can make. Europe is already in the war, but they don't want to admit it. Poland, Hungary, and other European countries are being flooded with refugees. That's part of Putin's plan. He sees the inhumanity as a tool to weaken Europe and the West. The more atrociously he behaves, the more inept the West appears, and the more he feels he's getting away with it. He cannot be appeased. He wants us to grovel.

Send the refugees to Canada and America. We have the room and the resources to shelter them or accept them as immigrants. That way Europe does not get overwhelmed and Putin/Russia are thwarted while Europe and the West gather their strength.

Discipline is the key to defeating Mr. Putin and Russia, not succumbing to passion and emotion in the face of atrocity. NATO and the West need time to build up their forces and to reposition military resources to fight a conventional war with Russia in Eastern Europe without going nuclear. So provoking a full military confrontation right now plays into Putin's and Russia's hands and greatly raises the chances of an escalating nuclear war.

I think it is already beyond time for a no-fly zone to be imposed. I'm no hawk, but I am a realist. It's going to happen, so we might as well do it now, rather than later. We've already failed by allowing Russian forces to take two nuclear sites. We cannot allow more. The world is at stake. He'll engineer a "nuclear disaster" unless his own troops deny him that. We can't rely on their inherent morality. They've already demonstrated that is folly.

What kind of a war are you envisioning and advocating for the West and NATO to start/escalate? An armed defence of Ukraine? A counter-attack to drive Russian forces out of Ukraine? A full attack on Russia, Belarus and any member of the Russian Federation which aids those two states? A thermonuclear first-strike at Russia and Belarus? What do you mean when you say, "... so we might as well do it now."? There is a very high chance that striking at Russia when 67% of its readily available regular ground armed forces are tied up in Ukraine will likely trigger a nuclear response.

Do we want to risk a few nuclear disasters in Ukraine or a global thermonuclear war instead?

The real danger is the nuclear sub fleet. They can wreak havoc to international shipping, and will whether we "provoke" it or not.

The real danger is the nuclear-armed ICBMs which Russia can launch from both land bases and nuclear-armed missile-submarines. Interdicting North Atlantic and Pacific shipping is minor in comparison.

Why do you want to rush into war or escalate a war which you believe already exists, when the time is not right?

Fear is the beginning of wisdom and nobody wins a global thermonuclear war (except the cockroaches and the worms). This could be the beginning of the end of human civilisation. I would not rush into that.

Very respectfully and please be well.
Evilroddy.

 

[oneworld2]

A BBC article, Ukraine: How might the war end? Five scenarios, posits five scenarios for the war, ignoring the obvious 6th - from a short or long conflict, to a European war, a diplomatic solution, to Putin being deposed - assiduously avoiding the reality we're already in. Putin wants a conflagration. He wants a confrontation with the west. He wants destruction of Europe. I think he has a terminal condition, and wants the world to burn if he's not in it.

But I think the sooner we acknowledge reality, the better choices we can make. Europe is already in the war, but they don't want to admit it. Poland, Hungary, and other European countries are being flooded with refugees. That's part of Putin's plan. He sees the inhumanity as a tool to weaken Europe and the West. The more atrociously he behaves, the more inept the West appears, and the more he feels he's getting away with it. He cannot be appeased. He wants us to grovel.

I think it is already beyond time for a no-fly zone to be imposed. I'm no hawk, but I am a realist. It's going to happen, so we might as well do it now, rather than later. We've already failed by allowing Russian forces to take two nuclear sites. We cannot allow more. The world is at stake. He'll engineer a "nuclear disaster" unless his own troops deny him that. We can't rely on their inherent morality. They've already demonstrated that is folly.

The real danger is the nuclear sub fleet. They can wreak havoc to international shipping, and will whether we "provoke" it or not.

Logic is not on your side imo

Why would he want war with a military alliance that is way more powerful than his own ?

The more" inept" he makes the West feel the more likely they are to get involved. Why would he want that given the gravity of the reality outlined above?

Why would he" engineer a nuclear disaster " on the country with 1200 mile land border with his own nation?

The risk of a nuclear exchange should things escalate in the way you want them to is a real possibility. From what I have learned the Russian warning system is not the same as the US's and the likelyhood of a mistake even is greater than what should be acceptable.

The focus should be on de-escalation imo I listen to many here and I wonder about how much they value their own lives and the lives of their loved ones in their quest to see escalations that risk the lives of everything on the planet. It appears Putin isn't alone is his madness, it's become fashionable for everyone to engage in it.

 

[snakestretcher]

A BBC article, Ukraine: How might the war end? Five scenarios, posits five scenarios for the war, ignoring the obvious 6th - from a short or long conflict, to a European war, a diplomatic solution, to Putin being deposed - assiduously avoiding the reality we're already in. Putin wants a conflagration. He wants a confrontation with the west. He wants destruction of Europe. I think he has a terminal condition, and wants the world to burn if he's not in it.

But I think the sooner we acknowledge reality, the better choices we can make. Europe is already in the war, but they don't want to admit it. Poland, Hungary, and other European countries are being flooded with refugees. That's part of Putin's plan. He sees the inhumanity as a tool to weaken Europe and the West. The more atrociously he behaves, the more inept the West appears, and the more he feels he's getting away with it. He cannot be appeased. He wants us to grovel.

I think it is already beyond time for a no-fly zone to be imposed. I'm no hawk, but I am a realist. It's going to happen, so we might as well do it now, rather than later. We've already failed by allowing Russian forces to take two nuclear sites. We cannot allow more. The world is at stake. He'll engineer a "nuclear disaster" unless his own troops deny him that. We can't rely on their inherent morality. They've already demonstrated that is folly.

The real danger is the nuclear sub fleet. They can wreak havoc to international shipping, and will whether we "provoke" it or not.

While I agree that there's a very real danger that this could escalate-especially if Putin invades or attacks a NATO member state, a no-fly zone would be tantamount to the West declaring war on Russia, in Putin's mind. There is no guarantee that aerial combat would be avoided. If nukes are employed you can also kiss your America arse goodbye. Putin is clearly reckless enough not to concern himself with the prospect of MAD.

 

[Juks]

Logic is not on your side imo

Why would he want war with a military alliance that is way more powerful than his own ?

The more" inept" he makes the West feel the more likely they are to get involved. Why would he want that given the gravity of the reality outlined above?

Why would he" engineer a nuclear disaster " on the country with 1200 mile land border with his own nation?

The risk of a nuclear exchange should things escalate in the way you want them to is a real possibility. From what I have learned the Russian warning system is not the same as the US's and the likelyhood of a mistake even is greater than what should be acceptable.

The focus should be on de-escalation imo I listen to many here and I wonder about how much they value their own lives and the lives of their loved ones in their quest to see escalations that risk the lives of everything on the planet. It appears Putin isn't alone is his madness, it's become fashionable for everyone to engage in it.

Neither are yours.


Putin isn't acting logical in any way. If he had done that, he would have realized either before the war or after the first day that the sanction would be to heavy for Russia to endure. Now he seems to think that he just have to occupy al of the Ukraine and the sanctions will stop. Hence he uppers the game by bombing the cities out of existence, by attacking and murdering civilians in the villages and by trying to get the hold on the electricity system (nuclear power facilities) We both know (logical) that they won’t. They won’t stop until he moves out of the Ukraine. So where does that take us? And where does that take Putin? He knows no other strategy than intimidation and threats and aggression.

The west are hoping in al our cynicism that the Ukraine will buy us enough time for Russia to get exhausted and just not be able to carry out any threats or intimidation anymore.

So it is really not a question if Putin would be stupid enough to take on NATO which has so much more capability than he does. He is and he would. The question will be if he can, and if he will use al those nuclearweapons he has before giving up.

There is really only one end to al of this and that is Russia losing, but there are several ways that loss may look like.

 

[oneworld2]

While I agree that there's a very real danger that this could escalate-especially if Putin invades or attacks a NATO member state, a no-fly zone would be tantamount to the West declaring war on Russia, in Putin's mind. There is no guarantee that aerial combat would be avoided. If nukes are employed you can also kiss your America arse goodbye. Putin is clearly reckless enough not to concern himself with the prospect of MAD.

Zelensky basically declared war with Russia last year when he stated the initiation of measures with which to take back Crimea, specifically mentioning Sevastopol. Moscow, and indeed all of the relevant elites, knew what this meant. This decision imo didn't come out of the blue, he must have been given info to think he would be given the means to do so, IE arms from NATO

Then we saw Biden follow through with congress' decision to supply Ukraine with military aid to the tune of hundreds of millions of dollars. That too would not have gone unnoticed by Moscow. Those weapons began to arrive from December onwards. Imo Moscow decided to strike Ukraine before Ukraine was in a position to mount a serious assault on Crimea and probably the Donbas region.

Those caught up in the jingoism for a broader war , due to the coverage in the western MSM ,with the danger of a nuclear element aren't thinking straight imo. De-escalation and then dialogue are the only real means to lower the risk but , in the hysterics on dispaly that are being encouraged each and every day the prospects for deescalation look slim, with most people happy to see a worsening situation involving more and more countries.

 

[snakestretcher]

Zelensky basically declared war with Russia last year when he stated the initiation of measures with which to take back Crimea, specifically mentioning Sevastopol. Moscow, and indeed all of the relevant elites, knew what this meant. This decision imo didn't come out of the blue, he must have been given info to think he would be given the means to do so, IE arms from NATO

Then we saw Biden follow through with congress' decision to supply Ukraine with military aid to the tune of hundreds of millions of dollars. That too would not have gone unnoticed by Moscow. Those weapons began to arrive from December onwards. Imo Moscow decided to strike Ukraine before Ukraine was in a position to mount a serious assault on Crimea and probably the Donbas region.

Those caught up in the jingoism for a broader war , due to the coverage in the western MSM ,with the danger of a nuclear element aren't thinking straight imo. De-escalation and then dialogue are the only real means to lower the risk but , in the hysterics on dispaly that are being encouraged each and every day the prospects for deescalation look slim, with most people happy to see a worsening situation involving more and more countries.

De-escalation in Putin's mind means a loss of face for him. He won't permit that.

 

[oneworld2]

Neither are yours.


Putin isn't acting logical in any way. If he had done that, he would have realized either before the war or after the first day that the sanction would be to heavy for Russia to endure. Now he seems to think that he just have to occupy al of the Ukraine and the sanctions will stop. Hence he uppers the game by bombing the cities out of existence, by attacking and murdering civilians in the villages and by trying to get the hold on the electricity system (nuclear power facilities) We both know (logical) that they won’t. They won’t stop until he moves out of the Ukraine. So where does that take us? And where does that take Putin? He knows no other strategy than intimidation and threats and aggression.

The west are hoping in al our cynicism that the Ukraine will buy us enough time for Russia to get exhausted and just not be able to carry out any threats or intimidation anymore.

So it is really not a question if Putin would be stupid enough to take on NATO which has so much more capability than he does. He is and he would. The question will be if he can, and if he will use al those nuclearweapons he has before giving up.

There is really only one end to al of this and that is Russia losing, but there are several ways that loss may look like.

I think its logical to invade a country that has basically declared war on you and is amassing the weapons needed to wage that war. The threat posed to Russia by Ukraine armed with the best that NATO can give them is at least a crdible threat, much more credible than the alleged/made up threats that were justified for the Wests illegal war on Iraq, for instance.

I see no real evidence that Putin thinks if he just occupies Ukraine for the long haul the sanctions will just stop. Russia has been under sanctions by the West for years, well before this stage of the conflict with Ukraine

My guess is that he has no intentions of staying in Ukraine for the long haul. I think he will inflict as much destruction on Ukraine as he can so that it will be a long time before they will be able to be in a position to follow through with their promise of retaking Crimea/donbas

You keep pushing an animal into a corner be prepared to be bitten at some point, or even nuked in this case. There is ALWAYS a risk of a nuclear exchange even in relative times of peace. The situation now is tense and getting more so, the chances of a mistake wrt the deployment of nuclear weapons is rising with every throw of the dice.

De-escalation in Putin's mind means a loss of face for him. He won't permit that.

I think his intention is to hit Ukraine as hard as he can, in as shorter a war as possible, and then get out of there. Any escalation will set us off on a different path with more dangerous prospects. I know everyone here is encouraged to believe that he is some crazy megolomaniac void of the ability to assess situations but I personally don't think he has a wish to bring about his own demise. Unless he is ill and doesn't care about any blowback, which is completely possible, he won't big so pig headed as to get rid of himself through his actions. I might be wrong and have been wrong with him before but until I see conclusive evidence that this is the case I am stickiing to what I think will be the case should things not escalate further

 

[Juks]

I think its logical to invade a country that has basically declared war on you and is amassing the weapons needed to wage that war. The threat posed to Russia by Ukraine armed with the best that NATO can give them is at least a crdible threat, much more credible than the alleged/made up threats that were justified for the Wests illegal war on Iraq, for instance.

I see no real evidence that Putin thinks if he just occupies Ukraine for the long haul the sanctions will just stop. Russia has been under sanctions by the West for years, well before this stage of the conflict with Ukraine

My guess is that he has no intentions of staying in Ukraine for the long haul. I think he will inflict as much destruction on Ukraine as he can so that it will be a long time before they will be able to be in a position to follow through with their promise of retaking Crimea/donbas

You keep pushing an animal into a corner be prepared to be bitten at some point, or even nuked in this case. There is ALWAYS a risk of a nuclear exchange even in relative times of peace. The situation now is tense and getting more so, the chances of a mistake wrt the deployment of nuclear weapons is rising with every throw of the dice.


I think his intention is to hit Ukraine as hard as he can, in as shorter a war as possible, and then get out of there. Any escalation will set us off on a different path with more dangerous prospects. I know everyone here is encouraged to believe that he is some crazy megolomaniac void of the ability to assess situations but I personally don't think he has a wish to bring about his own demise. Unless he is ill and doesn't care about any blowback, which is completely possible, he won't big so pig headed as to get rid of himself through his actions. I might be wrong and have been wrong with him before but until I see conclusive evidence that this is the case I am stickiing to what I think will be the case

As I said There is really only one end to al of this and that is Russia losing, but there are several ways that loss may look like.

 

[oneworld2]

As I said There is really only one end to al of this and that is Russia losing, but there are several ways that loss may look like.

Maybe, just maybe, we will all lose. Are you even prapared to acknowledge that risk?

 

[oneworld2]

"I know not with what weapons World War III will be fought, but World War IV will be fought with sticks and stones".

Worth bearing in mind and realising that this might be a more optimistic view than we might discover to be the case

 

[Juks]

Maybe, just maybe, we will all lose. Are you even prapared to acknowledge that risk?

As I said, there are several ways the loss may look like.

 

[NWRatCon]

I am always amazed at how so thoroughly a point can be missed.

Yes, I was less articulate than I could have been (a lack of sleep), but the central point was not really about what particular "response" would be "appropriate", but acknowledgement of the reality we are already in.

When NATO gets involved in Ukraine, and it will, that is a major muscle movement - I'll acknowledge that up front. It will expand far beyond whatever we intend - just as it has already.

And it is broader than I even outlined. This is existential stuff, people. We're not just talking about Europe, or Ukraine. We're reliving WWII, almost explicitly. I've written about this before. And we're making the same mistakes.

In the 1930s, we watched as Hitler reconstituted the German war machine, and did nothing. We knew his ambitions, he repeated it incessantly, but we ignored it. When he saber-rattled, we sought appeasement, somehow believing he'd be content with the Sudetenland. Instead, it emboldened him. He believed, correctly, that the West would not stop his further moves. We ignored Italy's practice war in Ethiopia, again believing it "didn't involve us" because, well, those were primitive people in a faraway land (read, Africans). Does this not sound incredibly familiar?

I'm not advocating for expansion. I'm not advocating saber-rattling. Yes, Putin has more ferocious weapons than Europe faced in WWII (or so it thought). But his playbook is the same. And, he is not alone. He has the same motivations, the same lack of a moral compass, and the same ruthlessness. I'm not sanguine about this, I'm terrified.

China will see the West's involvement in war with Russia as an opportunity. North Korea and Iran will see opportunity. They all have the same ambitions and the same structure - autocracy, and territorial expansion. This is the same fight and the same stakes that WWII was fought over. It is not just Ukraine. It is Taiwan. It is the entire Korean peninsula. It is Syria, Turkey, Iraq and Egypt. Again, does this not sound familiar?

What I am saying is, we need to prepare for that, and expect that, and realize this is going to get much, much, much worse, whether or not it ever gets better. We're just ignoring reality and that never ends well.

 

[NWRatCon]

Send the refugees to Canada and America. We have the room and the resources to shelter them or accept them as immigrants. That way Europe does not get overwhelmed and Putin/Russia are thwarted while Europe and the West gather their strength.

I agree, this needs to be a world-wide effort. It cannot be "contained". This is the biggest refugee movement since WWII. There is a reason for that.

Discipline is the key to defeating Mr. Putin and Russia, not succumbing to passion and emotion in the face of atrocity.

Again, I agree. I am not being emotional about it. I am being human about it.

What kind of a war are you envisioning and advocating for the West and NATO to start/escalate? An armed defence of Ukraine? A counter-attack to drive Russian forces out of Ukraine? A full attack on Russia, Belarus and any member of the Russian Federation which aids those two states? A thermonuclear first-strike at Russia and Belarus? What do you mean when you say, "... so we might as well do it now."? There is a very high chance that striking at Russia when 67% of its readily available regular ground armed forces are tied up in Ukraine will likely trigger a nuclear response.

All are risks. What I meant was that we've already lost most of the initiative. We've allowed Putin to set the terms.

NATO and the West need time to build up their forces and to reposition military resources to fight a conventional war with Russia in Eastern Europe without going nuclear. So provoking a full military confrontation right now plays into Putin's and Russia's hands and greatly raises the chances of an escalating nuclear war.

You may be right. But we need to think about it seriously, and plan accordingly. That, indeed, was my point.

Do we want to risk a few nuclear disasters in Ukraine or a global thermonuclear war instead?
The real danger is the nuclear-armed ICBMs which Russia can launch from both land bases and nuclear-armed missile-submarines. Interdicting North Atlantic and Pacific shipping is minor in comparison.

Here's the nub, my friend. We're not "risking" it, it's already in play.

Why do you want to rush into war or escalate a war which you believe already exists, when the time is not right?

Lord, I don't want war. This is going to be the worst thing that has happened in my lifetime, bar none. It will remain the worst thing. I don't know how it will end, I just know it has already started.

 

[NWRatCon]

It appears I'm not alone. The Impossible Suddenly Became Possible (Ann Applebaum, Atlantic). "When Russia invaded Ukraine, the West’s assumptions about the world became unsustainable."

On Saturday, in a 30-minute speech, the current German chancellor, Olaf Scholz, threw all of that out the window. Germany, he said, needs “planes that fly, ships that sail, and soldiers who are optimally equipped for their missions”: Germany’s military should reflect its “size and importance.” The German government has done an about-face and will even send weapons to Ukraine: 1,000 anti-tank weapons and 500 Stinger missiles. More incredibly, this 180-degree turn has the support of an astonishing 78 percent of the German public, who now say they approve of much higher military spending and will gladly pay for it. This is a fundamental change in Germany’s definition of itself, in its understanding of its past: Finally, Germans have understood that the lesson of their history is not that Germany must remain forever pacifist. The lesson is that Germany must defend democracy and fight the modern version of fascism in Europe when it emerges.

But the germans are not the only ones who have changed. Across Europe people are realizing that they live on a continent where war, in their own time, in their own countries, is no longer impossible. Platitudes about European “unity” and “solidarity” are beginning to have some meaning, along with “common foreign policy,” a phrase that, in the European Union, has until now been largely fiction.

 

[Juks]

I am always amazed at how so thoroughly a point can be missed.

Yes, I was less articulate than I could have been (a lack of sleep), but the central point was not really about what particular "response" would be "appropriate", but acknowledgement of the reality we are already in.

When NATO gets involved in Ukraine, and it will, that is a major muscle movement - I'll acknowledge that up front. It will expand far beyond whatever we intend - just as it has already.

And it is broader than I even outlined. This is existential stuff, people. We're not just talking about Europe, or Ukraine. We're reliving WWII, almost explicitly. I've written about this before. And we're making the same mistakes.

In the 1930s, we watched as Hitler reconstituted the German war machine, and did nothing. We knew his ambitions, he repeated it incessantly, but we ignored it. When he saber-rattled, we sought appeasement, somehow believing he'd be content with the Sudetenland. Instead, it emboldened him. He believed, correctly, that the West would not stop his further moves. We ignored Italy's practice war in Ethiopia, again believing it "didn't involve us" because, well, those were primitive people in a faraway land (read, Africans). Does this not sound incredibly familiar?

I'm not advocating for expansion. I'm not advocating saber-rattling. Yes, Putin has more ferocious weapons than Europe faced in WWII (or so it thought). But his playbook is the same. And, he is not alone. He has the same motivations, the same lack of a moral compass, and the same ruthlessness. I'm not sanguine about this, I'm terrified.

China will see the West's involvement in war with Russia as an opportunity. North Korea and Iran will see opportunity. They all have the same ambitions and the same structure - autocracy, and territorial expansion. This is the same fight and the same stakes that WWII was fought over. It is not just Ukraine. It is Taiwan. It is the entire Korean peninsula. It is Syria, Turkey, Iraq and Egypt. Again, does this not sound familiar?

What I am saying is, we need to prepare for that, and expect that, and realize this is going to get much, much, much worse, whether or not it ever gets better. We're just ignoring reality and that never ends well.

I hear you and I see the similarities with Germany during the 30th, after al my mother was German, born in 1925. I see the similarities between Putin and Hitler, down to putting his opposition in jail (My grandfather was a socialist) I see it.


BUT: There are differences. Hitler’s allies were stronger and better rooted than North Korea and Syria. The surrounding world did not act as fast or cordinated as we have done with the sanctions and the economic muscles of the west wasn't as strong as today and Germany was not such a light weigher economically in comparison to the rest of the European countries as Russia is. The sanctions are in fact warfare without a single bullet being shot, Putin is correct in that sense.

The question about China getting involved is difficult, but I don't think they will. China is no democracy; it's a dictatorship and dictatorships look at nothing but their own narratives. Yes, they have one narrative in common with Russia and that is to assert dominance on democracies and if possible, reduce the number of them. But then it differs. China is, unlike Russia, a superpower economically. They have the intention to continue to grow and increase their share of the world market. Openly taking Russia’s side would make it impossible for them to reach this goal. And then there is their take on Taiwan. The rhetoric that Russia has used against Ukraine is the same rhetoric that Taiwan is using against China and the rhetoric China uses in connection to Taiwan, is a defense speech for the Ukraine. Fact is that if China had been a democracy many countries in Europe and maybe the US as well would side with China in the conflict with Taiwan. It is the fact that Taiwan has a more working democracy that makes us side with Taiwan.

So I am not as pessimistic as you, but I can see how it could in the way you describe and that it could develop in the same way. It's a 50/50 with the sanctions working and force Russia to back down or that Putin is removed from power.

 

[Rogue Valley]

When NATO gets involved in Ukraine, and it will, that is a major muscle movement - I'll acknowledge that up front. It will expand far beyond whatever we intend - just as it has already.

The above is a supposition on your part that I strongly disagree with.

The onlly way NATO will get involved in warfare is if Putin attacks a NATO member.

 

[NWRatCon]

The above is a supposition on your part that I strongly disagree with.

The onlly way NATO will get involved in warfare is if Putin attacks a NATO member.

He will. Right after Georgia, Moldova, Finland. He set the pattern; now its just a matter of execution.

 

[bomberfox]

I am always amazed at how so thoroughly a point can be missed.

Yes, I was less articulate than I could have been (a lack of sleep), but the central point was not really about what particular "response" would be "appropriate", but acknowledgement of the reality we are already in.

When NATO gets involved in Ukraine, and it will, that is a major muscle movement - I'll acknowledge that up front. It will expand far beyond whatever we intend - just as it has already.

And it is broader than I even outlined. This is existential stuff, people. We're not just talking about Europe, or Ukraine. We're reliving WWII, almost explicitly. I've written about this before. And we're making the same mistakes.

In the 1930s, we watched as Hitler reconstituted the German war machine, and did nothing. We knew his ambitions, he repeated it incessantly, but we ignored it. When he saber-rattled, we sought appeasement, somehow believing he'd be content with the Sudetenland. Instead, it emboldened him. He believed, correctly, that the West would not stop his further moves. We ignored Italy's practice war in Ethiopia, again believing it "didn't involve us" because, well, those were primitive people in a faraway land (read, Africans). Does this not sound incredibly familiar?

I'm not advocating for expansion. I'm not advocating saber-rattling. Yes, Putin has more ferocious weapons than Europe faced in WWII (or so it thought). But his playbook is the same. And, he is not alone. He has the same motivations, the same lack of a moral compass, and the same ruthlessness. I'm not sanguine about this, I'm terrified.

China will see the West's involvement in war with Russia as an opportunity. North Korea and Iran will see opportunity. They all have the same ambitions and the same structure - autocracy, and territorial expansion. This is the same fight and the same stakes that WWII was fought over. It is not just Ukraine. It is Taiwan. It is the entire Korean peninsula. It is Syria, Turkey, Iraq and Egypt. Again, does this not sound familiar?

What I am saying is, we need to prepare for that, and expect that, and realize this is going to get much, much, much worse, whether or not it ever gets better. We're just ignoring reality and that never ends well.

Russia was never under any treaty to disarm, it rebuilds its arms much like any other country. I dont believe we are fighting the same stakes as WW 2

 

[Rogue Valley]

And while we are talking about security alliances, Belerus has allowed itself to be a part of the Russian invasion of Ukraine.

Belarus is member of the Collective Security Treaty Organization (CSTO) - Russia, Belarus, Azerbaijan, Armenia, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, and Uzbekistan.

I wonder why Antony Blinken never mentions this?

 

[NWRatCon]

I hear you and I see the similarities with Germany during the 30th, after al my mother was German, born in 1925. I see the similarities between Putin and Hitler, down to putting his opposition in jail (My grandfather was a socialist) I see it.


BUT: There are differences. Hitler’s allies were stronger and better rooted than North Korea and Syria. The surrounding world did not act as fast or cordinated as we have done with the sanctions and the economic muscles of the west wasn't as strong as today and Germany was not such a light weigher economically in comparison to the rest of the European countries as Russia is. The sanctions are in fact warfare without a single bullet being shot, Putin is correct in that sense.

The question about China getting involved is difficult, but I don't think they will. China is no democracy; it's a dictatorship and dictatorships look at nothing but their own narratives. Yes, they have one narrative in common with Russia and that is to assert dominance on democracies and if possible, reduce the number of them. But then it differs. China is, unlike Russia, a superpower economically. They have the intention to continue to grow and increase their share of the world market. Openly taking Russia’s side would make it impossible for them to reach this goal. And then there is their take on Taiwan. The rhetoric that Russia has used against Ukraine is the same rhetoric that Taiwan is using against China and the rhetoric China uses in connection to Taiwan, is a defense speech for the Ukraine. Fact is that if China had been a democracy many countries in Europe and maybe the US as well would side with China in the conflict with Taiwan. It is the fact that Taiwan has a more working democracy that makes us side with Taiwan.

So I am not as pessimistic as you, but I can see how it could in the way you describe and that it could develop in the same way. It's a 50/50 with the sanctions working and force Russia to back down or that Putin is removed from power.

I'm hopeful that sanctions will destroy Putin.

My comments regarding China, North Korea, and Iran is not as allies, per se, as in "the Axis" (or "axis of evil" as Bush described it), but as an opportunistic infection. While the West is engaged in Europe, ne'er-do-wells will take advantage.

 

[Rogue Valley]

He will. Right after Georgia, Moldova, Finland. He set the pattern; now its just a matter of execution.

Moldova and Georgia are prime targets. I don't think Putin would attack Finland.

None of these are NATO nations.

 

[bomberfox]

World war 2 had the stakes of industrial genocide and total war. This aint it.

 

[NWRatCon]

Russia was never under any treaty to disarm, it rebuilds its arms much like any other country. I dont believe we are fighting the same stakes as WW 2

I agree. They're much greater.

 

[bomberfox]

I agree. They're much greater.

Potentially.