Ukraine – Russia … not more of the last thread

[isolar8001]

Chilling stuff for sure...but that's what war is when the attackees become the attackers.

"Missiles will speak for themselves"

Zelensky's chilling 5-word warning ahead of US missile strikes on Russia

VOLODYMYR Zelensky has issued a stark warning to his foe Vladimir Putin as he told the tyrant: “Missiles will speak for themselves”. It comes as Washington has given the go-ahead for US…

www.the-sun.com

 

[highfigh]

My best guess is that Putin would test NATO by taking limited military action against a smaller NATO country.

Germany is still not supplying Taurus missiles to Ukraine. Scholz apparently wants to avoid war with Russia at all cost.

>>>Though there are many voices in favor of delivering the Taurus, Scholz remains categorically opposed to delivering the weapon system. He argues that Germany runs the risk of being drawn into the war between Russia and Ukraine if the Taurus cruise missiles are used. "We must not be linked in any way or at any place with the targets that this system achieves," he said.<<<

Why Germany isn't sending Taurus to Ukraine – DW – 11/18/2024

Germany will not follow the United States in delivering long-range cruise missiles to Ukraine, Chancellor Olaf Scholz says. Officials fear that they could be used against targets within Russia.

www.dw.com

If he does take action against ANY NATO country, it would show that he doesn't understand the pact or he's playing 'Chicken'.

From the link, "
Here's (most of) article 5:

The Parties agree that an armed attack against one or more of them in Europe or North America shall be considered an attack against them all and consequently they agree that, if such an armed attack occurs, each of them, in exercise of the right of individual or collective self-defence recognised by Article 51 of the Charter of the United Nations, will assist the Party or Parties so attacked by taking forthwith, individually and in concert with the other Parties, such action as it deems necessary, including the use of armed force, to restore and maintain the security of the North Atlantic area."

Is NATO obliged to invoke Article 5 if one of its members attacks another member?

Turkey is currently doing a lot of posturing against the EU in general and its neighbor Greece in particular. Assuming Turkey were to attack Greece, is NATO obliged to invoke Article 5 (Collective

politics.stackexchange.com

 

[shadyJ]

If he does take action against ANY NATO country, it would show that he doesn't understand the pact or he's playing 'Chicken'.

From the link, "
Here's (most of) article 5:

Is NATO obliged to invoke Article 5 if one of its members attacks another member?

Turkey is currently doing a lot of posturing against the EU in general and its neighbor Greece in particular. Assuming Turkey were to attack Greece, is NATO obliged to invoke Article 5 (Collective

politics.stackexchange.com

I could easily see Trump deciding not to honor his NATO obligations.

 

[isolar8001]

I could easily see Trump deciding not to honor his NATO obligations.

Maybe after he runs a 10 month investigation to see if they "are all paid up" he would.

 

[Mr._Clark]

If he does take action against ANY NATO country, it would show that he doesn't understand the pact or he's playing 'Chicken'.

From the link, "
Here's (most of) article 5:

Is NATO obliged to invoke Article 5 if one of its members attacks another member?

Turkey is currently doing a lot of posturing against the EU in general and its neighbor Greece in particular. Assuming Turkey were to attack Greece, is NATO obliged to invoke Article 5 (Collective

politics.stackexchange.com

With the sole exception of the 9/11 attacks on the U.S., Article 5 remains untested. I cannot predict the future, but Trump has already said he'd ignore article 5 if a country is not paying the required amount.

>>>“NATO was busted until I came along,” Trump said at a rally in Conway, South Carolina. “I said, ‘Everybody’s gonna pay.’ They said, ‘Well, if we don’t pay, are you still going to protect us?’ I said, ‘Absolutely not.’ They couldn’t believe the answer.”

Trump said “one of the presidents of a big country” at one point asked him whether the US would still defend the country if they were invaded by Russia even if they “don’t pay.”

“No, I would not protect you,” Trump recalled telling that president. “In fact, I would encourage them to do whatever the hell they want. You got to pay. You got to pay your bills.”<<<(emphasis added)

https://www.cnn.com/2024/02/10/politics/trump-russia-nato/index.html

My "best guess" was in response to Trell's "what's next" question, which a interpreted to mean "what's next if Russian defeats Ukraine?" My best guess is probably the minority view, but the odds are certainly not zero.

>>>Things might appear different were Russia to defeat Ukraine and have a few years to regenerate its military capabilities. Leaders of the three Baltic states see Russia as a clear military threat. German and Danish officials also have warned that Russia is planning for a possible military confrontation with NATO in the future. . . .

Why would we not think it possible, were Russia to defeat Ukraine and rebuild its military, that Putin might not miscalculate again, particularly if Ukraine fell due to lack of Western assistance? If the United States did not stick with Ukraine, which has cost the lives of no U.S. soldiers, would Putin believe that it would send its military to fight to defend eastern Estonia? Nothing would break NATO more surely than a U.S. refusal to defend one of the allies. That could look awfully tempting to Putin.<<<(emphasis added)

Would Putin Attack a NATO Member?

fsi.stanford.edu

 

[Trell]

My "best guess" was in response to Trell's "what's next" question, which a interpreted to mean "what's next if Russian defeats Ukraine?" My best guess is probably the minority view, but the odds are certainly not zero.

Moldavia is the country most likely to fall along with Ukraine, at first. There are Russian supported stooges in part of the country and there's around 1 000 or so Russian troops stationed.

 

[highfigh]

With the sole exception of the 9/11 attacks on the U.S., Article 5 remains untested. I cannot predict the future, but Trump has already said he'd ignore article 5 if a country is not paying the required amount.

>>>“NATO was busted until I came along,” Trump said at a rally in Conway, South Carolina. “I said, ‘Everybody’s gonna pay.’ They said, ‘Well, if we don’t pay, are you still going to protect us?’ I said, ‘Absolutely not.’ They couldn’t believe the answer.”

Trump said “one of the presidents of a big country” at one point asked him whether the US would still defend the country if they were invaded by Russia even if they “don’t pay.”

“No, I would not protect you,” Trump recalled telling that president. “In fact, I would encourage them to do whatever the hell they want. You got to pay. You got to pay your bills.”<<<(emphasis added)

https://www.cnn.com/2024/02/10/politics/trump-russia-nato/index.html

My "best guess" was in response to Trell's "what's next" question, which a interpreted to mean "what's next if Russian defeats Ukraine?" My best guess is probably the minority view, but the odds are certainly not zero.

>>>Things might appear different were Russia to defeat Ukraine and have a few years to regenerate its military capabilities. Leaders of the three Baltic states see Russia as a clear military threat. German and Danish officials also have warned that Russia is planning for a possible military confrontation with NATO in the future. . . .

Why would we not think it possible, were Russia to defeat Ukraine and rebuild its military, that Putin might not miscalculate again, particularly if Ukraine fell due to lack of Western assistance? If the United States did not stick with Ukraine, which has cost the lives of no U.S. soldiers, would Putin believe that it would send its military to fight to defend eastern Estonia? Nothing would break NATO more surely than a U.S. refusal to defend one of the allies. That could look awfully tempting to Putin.<<<(emphasis added)

Would Putin Attack a NATO Member?

fsi.stanford.edu

Considering Russia's thinking that they would win quickly, I'm not sure how they continue their efforts although, obviously, some of those who were in Putin's camp are now dead, so who knows about their conversations? They sure have lost far more than they had predicted.

 

[GO-NAD!]

With the sole exception of the 9/11 attacks on the U.S., Article 5 remains untested. I cannot predict the future, but Trump has already said he'd ignore article 5 if a country is not paying the required amount.

>>>“NATO was busted until I came along,” Trump said at a rally in Conway, South Carolina. “I said, ‘Everybody’s gonna pay.’ They said, ‘Well, if we don’t pay, are you still going to protect us?’ I said, ‘Absolutely not.’ They couldn’t believe the answer.”

Trump said “one of the presidents of a big country” at one point asked him whether the US would still defend the country if they were invaded by Russia even if they “don’t pay.”

“No, I would not protect you,” Trump recalled telling that president. “In fact, I would encourage them to do whatever the hell they want. You got to pay. You got to pay your bills.”<<<(emphasis added)

https://www.cnn.com/2024/02/10/politics/trump-russia-nato/index.html

My "best guess" was in response to Trell's "what's next" question, which a interpreted to mean "what's next if Russian defeats Ukraine?" My best guess is probably the minority view, but the odds are certainly not zero.

>>>Things might appear different were Russia to defeat Ukraine and have a few years to regenerate its military capabilities. Leaders of the three Baltic states see Russia as a clear military threat. German and Danish officials also have warned that Russia is planning for a possible military confrontation with NATO in the future. . . .

Why would we not think it possible, were Russia to defeat Ukraine and rebuild its military, that Putin might not miscalculate again, particularly if Ukraine fell due to lack of Western assistance? If the United States did not stick with Ukraine, which has cost the lives of no U.S. soldiers, would Putin believe that it would send its military to fight to defend eastern Estonia? Nothing would break NATO more surely than a U.S. refusal to defend one of the allies. That could look awfully tempting to Putin.<<<(emphasis added)

Would Putin Attack a NATO Member?

fsi.stanford.edu

They've already been doing it, albeit in asymmetrical fashion.
Russia Suspected as Baltic Undersea Cables Cut in Apparent Sabotage - WSJ
Watch: Exclusive footage captures Russian-led saboteur in the act | CNN
Russia's 'brazen' and intensifying sabotage campaign across Europe
Russia behind plot to plant bombs on cargo planes, Western official says

If there is one Trump stance that I can agree with, it's that other NATO countries - especially my own - need to boost defence spending, notwithstanding his somewhat unsophisticated understanding of how this works., i.e. there are no "bills" or "dues" to pay. Each member just needs to carry their own weight.

As long as Ukraine is holding out, I don't think Russia would dare to openly attack any NATO country. They obviously don't have the strength to fight a two-front war, which is being clearly demonstrated by their deployment of North Korean troops. They could try intercepting shipments of arms into Ukraine, but that carries its own risk and may be perceived as a direct attack anyway.

Russian sabre-rattling towards NATO, in an effort to dissuade further help to Ukraine, comes from a position of weakness. They raise the spectre of nuclear war because it's the only thing they can credibly threaten. But, I highly doubt that Xi Jinping would be happy with Putin resorting to nuclear war.

I was going to suggest that more rigid enforcement of sanctions might be more effective than wider use of ballistic missiles, but this article suggests that it may be an exercise in futility.
Why Russia Has Been So Resilient to Western Export Controls | Carnegie Endowment for International Peace