Russo-Ukrainian War 2014-25

[DGuller]

Unfortunately, you've been too indoctrinated over the course of your career by the Military-Industrial Complex, which has convinced you--contrary to every possible example since Clauswitz--that Great Power warfare can be limited and contained.  Dickhead.

How applicable are the lessons from the past, back when there were no weapons capable of assuring mutual destruction?

[mongers]

Unfortunately, you've been too indoctrinated over the course of your career by the Military-Industrial Complex, which has convinced you--contrary to every possible example since Clauswitz--that Great Power warfare can be limited and contained.  Dickhead.

How applicable are the lessons from the past, back when there were no weapons capable of assuring mutual destruction?

Well everyone knew where they were on the North German plain, nowadays those marshes,forests and steppe just confuses the hell out of most politicians.

[Razgovory]

If non-Russian soldiers invade a country then Russia really can't complain if NATO kills them.

[Martinus]

If non-Russian soldiers invade a country then Russia really can't complain if NATO kills them.

It's not that Russia will "complain". It's that I don't think Russia would let countries like Poland etc. slaughter "non Russian" troops in Lithuania - Putin may be popular but that would not go well in Russia. So the proposition is that if the little green men start being killed or captured en masse, he will have to give them military support thus openly attacking a NATO country.

Which is exactly why I don't think he would try to repeat the Ukrainian scenario in the Baltics unless he can be fairly sure that NATO would not respond to an open aggression against a NATO country.

[grumbler]

Unfortunately, you've been too indoctrinated over the course of your career by the Military-Industrial Complex, which has convinced you--contrary to every possible example since Clauswitz--that Great Power warfare can be limited and contained.  Dickhead.

Unfortunately, I have read history, and noted the lack of gas warfare in WW2 - an example of where Great power warfare was limited and contained.  Sorry that you think that being knowledgeable is being a dickhead.

[CountDeMoney]

Unfortunately, you've been too indoctrinated over the course of your career by the Military-Industrial Complex, which has convinced you--contrary to every possible example since Clauswitz--that Great Power warfare can be limited and contained.  Dickhead.

Unfortunately, I have read history, and noted the lack of gas warfare in WW2 - an example of where Great power warfare was limited and contained.  Sorry that you think that being knowledgeable is being a dickhead.

Yeah, WW2 was the height of restrained warfare, alright.  All that rubble.  And a lack of gas warfare?  "Oy gevalt", said the Jews.   No wonder Poland and the Baltics don't trust NATO; they're just going to get sold out by the likes of you. 

Sorry, Poland; better luck next time joining a collective security organization based on mutual defense, predicated on the promise of mutually assured destruction as the absolute guarantor of peace.  Suckers.

[grumbler]

Yeah, WW2 was the height of restrained warfare, alright.  All that rubble.  And a lack of gas warfare?  "Oy gevalt", said the Jews.   No wonder Poland and the Baltics don't trust NATO; they're just going to get sold out by the likes of you. 

Sorry, Poland; better luck next time joining a collective security organization based on mutual defense, predicated on the promise of mutually assured destruction as the absolute guarantor of peace.  Suckers.

Poland found that that collective security arrangement (known as the Warsaw pact) didn't work out so well.  NATO has never held the belief that MAD was an absolute guarantor of peace, no matter how much you wish upon your little star that they did.

It is the idiots who misunderstand NATO, and think that NATO can only choose between nuclear holocaust and surrender in the face of Russian attack who will sell out the Baltics; you know, idiots like you.

[alfred russel]

Unfortunately, you've been too indoctrinated over the course of your career by the Military-Industrial Complex, which has convinced you--contrary to every possible example since Clauswitz--that Great Power warfare can be limited and contained.  Dickhead.

Unfortunately, I have read history, and noted the lack of gas warfare in WW2 - an example of where Great power warfare was limited and contained.  Sorry that you think that being knowledgeable is being a dickhead.

WWII--a case study in limited warfare and containment. You even left out how the US restrained itself from nuking Tokyo and instead selected other Japanese cities.

[CountDeMoney]

Poland found that that collective security arrangement (known as the Warsaw pact) didn't work out so well. 

Oh, I don't know...maybe Poland should reconsider, since they actually had a better deal in the Warsaw Pact;  after all, they were never attacked and at least Moscow guaranteed their defense--which is a lot more than you and some of the more recent Languish revisionists seem to want to do.

NATO has never held the belief that MAD was an absolute guarantor of peace, no matter how much you wish upon your little star that they did.

It is the idiots who misunderstand NATO, and think that NATO can only choose between nuclear holocaust and surrender in the face of Russian attack who will sell out the Baltics; you know, idiots like you.

The inevitability that any NATO-WP conflict would escalate to nuclear warfare was precisely why there was never any NATO-WP conflict.  Having Moscow convincingly believe in that inevitability is what guaranteed it.  Unfortunately, wandering from that policy and the moral vacillating we're seeing today increases the chance of conflict with Russia, not reduces it--and has lead Russia to lower their nuclear use threshold to actually conceive of their use in local conflicts along their borders. 

But I guess you don't have to worry about stocking up on your potassium iodide when you're ready to sell out NATO members.

[dps]

The inevitability that any NATO-WP conflict would escalate to nuclear warfare was precisely why there was never any NATO-WP conflict.  Having Moscow convincingly believe in that inevitability is what guaranteed it.

No, what prevented it was that the Soviets were never quite sure they would win, and were too cautious to attack if they weren't sure of winning.  Why should they--they thought that in the long run, their victory was inevitable, because they thought the West would collapse, not them. 

To be clear, they did think that a nuclear war was winnable (at least their political leadership did;  it's not clear that their senior military leaders agreed), but they were never in a position in which they thought that they were assured of being the winners of a military confrontation.

Anyway, the West sold out Poland and the rest of eastern Europe at Yalta, so I don't see any convincing argument that says we won't do it again.

[CountDeMoney]

o, what prevented it was that the Soviets were never quite sure they would win, and were too cautious to attack if they weren't sure of winning.  Why should they--they thought that in the long run, their victory was inevitable, because they thought the West would collapse, not them. 

To be clear, they did think that a nuclear war was winnable (at least their political leadership did;  it's not clear that their senior military leaders agreed), but they were never in a position in which they thought that they were assured of being the winners of a military confrontation.

Meh, so did our leadership, whether it was McNamara's "gradual response"  becoming "flexible response" or Reagan's "let's just fight it in Europe" policy.

Anyway, the West sold out Poland and the rest of eastern Europe at Yalta, so I don't see any convincing argument that says we won't do it again.

Poor track suited bastards.

[grumbler]

Oh, I don't know...maybe Poland should reconsider, since they actually had a better deal in the Warsaw Pact;  after all, they were never attacked and at least Moscow guaranteed their defense--which is a lot more than you and some of the more recent Languish revisionists seem to want to do.

They've never been attacked while members of NATO, either.  I have no as to what delusions you have whipped up about what I "seem" to believe, since my argument is limited to the belief that NATO would, in fact, defend its eastern border and wouldn't be terrified, as you are, by the belief that any war there must go nuclear.

The inevitability that any NATO-WP conflict would escalate to nuclear warfare was precisely why there was never any NATO-WP conflict.  Having Moscow convincingly believe in that inevitability is what guaranteed it.  Unfortunately, wandering from that policy and the moral vacillating we're seeing today increases the chance of conflict with Russia, not reduces it--and has lead Russia to lower their nuclear use threshold to actually conceive of their use in local conflicts along their borders. 

But I guess you don't have to worry about stocking up on your potassium iodide when you're ready to sell out NATO members.

This is mere argument by assertion, and is contrary to all kinds of factual evidence from history that shows that the Soviets not only believed that a conventional war was possible, but planned for it, and equipped their army for it.  Look at anything like the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Group_of_Soviet_Forces_in_Germany and you will see very sizable Soviet conventional forces, which would be unnecessary and even counter-productive had the Soviets actually believed that any war with NATO would go nuclear.  Your revisionism doesn't stand up to even the briefest analysis of evidence.

Now, I am sure that you believe that your mind-reading ability easily furnishes you the evidence that the Russians have lowered their nuclear use threshold because NATO no longer has your delusionally low nuclear threshold, but it is, in fact, the weakness of the Russian position vis-a-vis NATO that has caused them to scaremonger about a lower nuclear threshold.  In reality, of course, this is just bluster.  Putin knows that, should he order his generals to use nuclear weapons and terminate the Russian state (and their families) for reasons short of existential threats to that state and those families, they will simply shoot him, not the nukes.  Asking sane men to die for you is hard, but maybe doable; asking them to kill their families for you is not doable.

[grumbler]

Anyway, the West sold out Poland and the rest of eastern Europe at Yalta, so I don't see any convincing argument that says we won't do it again.

I don't see any convincing argument that says you will sell out Poland and the rest of eastern Europe, either, though.  Were you even at Yalta?  I thought it a bit before your time.

[grumbler]

To be clear, they did think that a nuclear war was winnable (at least their political leadership did;  it's not clear that their senior military leaders agreed), but they were never in a position in which they thought that they were assured of being the winners of a military confrontation.

I think that it is more accurate to say that the Soviet leadership thought that nuclear warfare didn't have to escalate to thermonuclear combat, and that a limited nuclear war was thus possible and thus "winnable."  That was the whole rationale behind the Soviet deployment in Intermediate-ranged Nuclear Forces, and the NATO response.  You are correct that the Soviets were never sure enough of victory at any particular level of nuclear force employment (including zero) to risk a war.

[CountDeMoney]

Arguing with grumbler is an exercise in Mutually Assured Deconstruction.