Russo-Ukrainian War 2014-25

[Berkut]

Putin, I am sure, has no idea just how weak and incapable of meaningful response much of NATO has become...

The unfortunate hamstringer for NATO is its very strength:  the nuclear deterrent.  Unfortunately, having nothing of a credible conventional capability between "strong letter to follow" and "full attack conference" is that it allows for absolutely no graduated response in a crisis that leads to direct conflict.  There's no room built into the equation for time in developing a political resolution.

If the Russians try to march to Riga, our options are limited.  Which is why I said earlier in the thread, if he moves on NATO, that's the whole ballgame.  Hopefully the nuclear battlefield would be restricted to eastern Europe, but it is established doctrine that strikes on Russian soil would require in-turn retaliation.

If Putin believes that his actions would result in 1) nothing, or 2) a nuclear response, that's a high risk/high reward roll of the dice I believe he'd make.  Is Riga or Warsaw worth Paris, London or New York?

Indeed.

Being weak, and being obviously weak, encourages aggressive weak actors to do stupid things. Like this.

But no worries, the real issue for nations like Germany is whether or not the US might be spying on them or not.

[The Brain]

NATO should find a country with no friends, and nuke it. Just to show it's a little crazy.

[alfred russel]

Not sure I understand why NATO defense spending has been shown to be inadequate...even if NATO quadrupled defense spending, it isn't as though it would be going to war with Russia over Ukraine.

False dilemna.

If European NATO countries had a viable military, perhaps Putin wouldn't be so confident that he could defy them.

And "going to war with Russia" is hardly the only other option.

As it is, NATO defense spending is some multiple of Russia's anyway.

And yet Russia can actually move troops around and invade their neighbors, while Germany cannot keep even 1/4th of their fighters in the air...

I am certain that NATO air forces are superior to what the Russians have, whatever the shortcomings of some members.

[CountDeMoney]

I am certain that NATO the United States' air forces are superior to what the Russians have, whatever the shortcomings of some members.

[CountDeMoney]

But no worries, the real issue for nations like Germany is whether or not the US might be spying on them or not.

That, and the threat 9.0 earthquakes and the resulting tsunamis pose to Germany's nuclear power industry.  Because we all know how often that happens in central Europe.

[Berkut]

Not sure I understand why NATO defense spending has been shown to be inadequate...even if NATO quadrupled defense spending, it isn't as though it would be going to war with Russia over Ukraine.

False dilemna.

If European NATO countries had a viable military, perhaps Putin wouldn't be so confident that he could defy them.

And "going to war with Russia" is hardly the only other option.

As it is, NATO defense spending is some multiple of Russia's anyway.

And yet Russia can actually move troops around and invade their neighbors, while Germany cannot keep even 1/4th of their fighters in the air...

I am certain that NATO air forces are superior to what the Russians have, whatever the shortcomings of some members.

Since NATO includes the US, that is trivially true.

But that isn't the point, unless you are just wanting to reinforce the fact that NATO, by and large, has been relying almost completely on the US for defense for some time now, and more recently (the last couple of decades) has almost completely abandoned even a pretext of keeping up their end of the bargain, even as limited as that end was...

[derspiess]

Putin reminding Kazakhstan who's boss:

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/sep/01/kazakhstan-russian-neighbour-putin-chilly-nationalist-rhetoric

Putin may think he's a big man by pushing around Kazakhstan.  But he knows better than to mess with Turkmenistan.  Esteemed President Gurbanguly Berdimuhamedov would kick Putin's ass.

[Jacob]

Since NATO includes the US, that is trivially true.

But that isn't the point, unless you are just wanting to reinforce the fact that NATO, by and large, has been relying almost completely on the US for defense for some time now, and more recently (the last couple of decades) has almost completely abandoned even a pretext of keeping up their end of the bargain, even as limited as that end was...

I know you're speaking generally and in aggregate, and that the Germans and others weigh heavily there, but I like to think that Canada, Denmark, and the UK are generally keeping up their end of the bargain (or at the very least keeping up the pretext, as you say)?

[celedhring]

Still, I would be surprised if NATO minus the US doesn't outspend Russia. It's more inefficient than if it was a sole country, of course. But as an European federalist that pushes my agenda .

[alfred russel]

It's more inefficient than if it was a sole country, of course.

It is still probably more efficient than the sole country of Russia.

[Razgovory]

Since NATO includes the US, that is trivially true.

But that isn't the point, unless you are just wanting to reinforce the fact that NATO, by and large, has been relying almost completely on the US for defense for some time now, and more recently (the last couple of decades) has almost completely abandoned even a pretext of keeping up their end of the bargain, even as limited as that end was...

I know you're speaking generally and in aggregate, and that the Germans and others weigh heavily there, but I like to think that Canada, Denmark, and the UK are generally keeping up their end of the bargain (or at the very least keeping up the pretext, as you say)?

I'd like to think that as well.  I do remember the UK was bumming off fuel and bombs of the US during the Libyan thingy though.  Don't know about Denmark.

[PJL]

There is no way that a Russian invasion of the Baltic states would not trigger a strong European reaction. Not because they're part of NATO, but because they're part of the EU. Any attack by them would therefore embolden the EU politicians to argue for a common defence & foreign policy, thus creating more central control over individual countries. I'm not saying it's an EU conspiracy, but it would create a convenient excuse for increased spending within member countries, without it looking like an unpopular thing to do.

I suspect the EU is at the stage like America before WW2, it is an economic great power, but it needs a outside crisis to galvanise it into a serious military power. To be honest, I'm surprised some politicians aren't already talking of this within the EU, it seems to be more of a NATO thing at the moment.

[Jacob]

I'd like to think that as well.  I do remember the UK was bumming off fuel and bombs of the US during the Libyan thingy though.  Don't know about Denmark.

I'm under the impression that Denmark has contributed assets to every NATO action in the last several decades, as well as Iraq, and been involved in, actual fighting. Not as much as the US, obviously, and probably replaceable if push came to shove, but it is a country of only a little more than 5.5 million people.

From a quick search, Denmark did run out of bombs during the Libya thing, but we bummed extra ones from the Netherlands, not the US: http://www.defensenews.com/article/20110609/DEFSECT01/106090302/Danish-Planes-Libya-Running-Out-Bombs-Report

[KRonn]

Yeah, it also seems to me that Denmark, for such a small country, has been punching above their weight in some of the recent events requiring military might.

[Tamas]

Based on current events, there is no need for an invasion of the Baltic States. There will be just a righteous uprising by civilians against opression, and they will be weirdly well armed and supplied, and will be making a mockery of the fact that righteous EU states will be shooting at their own unhappy citizens.

Solving that will need a military action by NATO against the Russian mainland which may or may not result in nuclear holocaust but even if it ends with a deal it will give Putin the final boost to popularity and excuse to finish the move total autocracy.

By that time he will have the pipeline to China, with the population already adjusting to North Koreaficiation due to gradually (and thus with relatively little pain and shock) removed from the developed world's trade network.

There is no scenario where the West can stop Putin from accomplishing what he wants (re-establishing a quazi-empire and making sure he gets total control over it), unless they somehow make Ukraine a clear and obvious failure for him. And even then that may just help him.