Russo-Ukrainian War 2014-23 and Invasion

[crazy canuck]

I always find these videos pretty interesting:

On Russia vs NATO

TLDW: There's a real risk of a Russian attack on NATO. The aim of that attack will not be to take territory (and trigger an all out confrontation). It will be to engineer a situation that increases the chance of NATO countries deciding that it's not worth responding, to undermine and essentially destroy NATO (or deescalate if that doesn't happen).

You're forgetting his necessary first condition, which is that NATO is no longer NATO.

[crazy canuck]

that peacedivident is turning out to be the dumbest thing the west may have done since declaring "peace in our time"

Not based on the video Jacob posted

[Zoupa]

I always find these videos pretty interesting:

On Russia vs NATO

TLDW: There's a real risk of a Russian attack on NATO. The aim of that attack will not be to take territory (and trigger an all out confrontation). It will be to engineer a situation that increases the chance of NATO countries deciding that it's not worth responding, to undermine and essentially destroy NATO (or deescalate if that doesn't happen).

You're forgetting his necessary first condition, which is that NATO is no longer NATO.

NATO is only NATO if Democrats control the House, Senate and White House.

[crazy canuck]

I always find these videos pretty interesting:

On Russia vs NATO

TLDW: There's a real risk of a Russian attack on NATO. The aim of that attack will not be to take territory (and trigger an all out confrontation). It will be to engineer a situation that increases the chance of NATO countries deciding that it's not worth responding, to undermine and essentially destroy NATO (or deescalate if that doesn't happen).

You're forgetting his necessary first condition, which is that NATO is no longer NATO.

NATO is only NATO if Democrats control the House, Senate and White House.

Assuming that it's true, the video should properly be talking about what happens if the US withdraws from NATO.

I'm not saying it's a bad idea to plan for that potential. What I am saying is that it is a bit lazy to assume it has already happened.

[Josquius]

Assuming that it's true, the video should properly be talking about what happens if the US withdraws from NATO.

I'm not saying it's a bad idea to plan for that potential. What I am saying is that it is a bit lazy to assume it has already happened.

Isn't it less "What if the US leaves NATO" and more "What if the US elects Trump or the ilk and it becomes clear it won't actually defend NATO members if they're attacked"

[Tamas]

CC may I recommend you watch the video?

The video is about the suggested folly of expecting Russia vs. a NATO country happen in a scenario where escalation into  a war against whole of NATO is a near-certainty. For example attacking a Baltic state would no doubt drag Poland in as a bare minimum and it'd escalate from there as not even Putin can doubt NATO's resolve to partake in defending those countries. And of course there's the tiny detail that Russia is in no shape to undertake such a plan.

But what if, as the video suggests, Russia pokes at the remotest areas of Finland such as saying they need X area as a security buffer and move in? This would:

a) potentially make it less likely that NATO countries -and the video doesn't limit this to Trump's or other's USA- and their leaders/population can be convinced to mobilise for war because of a corner of Karelia
YET it would still be a big hit in the belief in Article 5 if they didn't honor it

and

b) if NATO countries DO honor Article 5 to defend the remotest corner of Karelia, then the remotest corner of Karelia is far easier for Russia to de-escalate and retreat from than let's say Estonia.

[Barrister]

I see it being reported in Twitter that Gen Zaluzhny has been fired.

[Josquius]

I see it being reported in Twitter that Gen Zaluzhny has been fired.

Interesting timing with russia "winning" at the moment, Ukraines big ammo problems, etc...

[crazy canuck]

Assuming that it's true, the video should properly be talking about what happens if the US withdraws from NATO.

I'm not saying it's a bad idea to plan for that potential. What I am saying is that it is a bit lazy to assume it has already happened.

Isn't it less "What if the US leaves NATO" and more "What if the US elects Trump or the ilk and it becomes clear it won't actually defend NATO members if they're attacked"

Yes, but I think those are functionally the same thing.

[Jacob]

You're forgetting his necessary first condition, which is that NATO is no longer NATO.

That is not what I took from the video.

I took it to suggest that Russia might attack NATO (and not a current member of NATO once NATO no longer exists), in a way to explicitly expose weaknesses within the alliance and turn it into "no longer NATO" - either by resulting in the dissolution of the alliance, or by exposing it as an alliance in name only.

[Jacob]

The video is about the suggested folly of expecting Russia vs. a NATO country happen in a scenario where escalation into  a war against whole of NATO is a near-certainty. For example attacking a Baltic state would no doubt drag Poland in as a bare minimum and it'd escalate from there as not even Putin can doubt NATO's resolve to partake in defending those countries. And of course there's the tiny detail that Russia is in no shape to undertake such a plan.

But what if, as the video suggests, Russia pokes at the remotest areas of Finland such as saying they need X area as a security buffer and move in? This would:

a) potentially make it less likely that NATO countries -and the video doesn't limit this to Trump's or other's USA- and their leaders/population can be convinced to mobilise for war because of a corner of Karelia
YET it would still be a big hit in the belief in Article 5 if they didn't honor it

and

b) if NATO countries DO honor Article 5 to defend the remotest corner of Karelia, then the remotest corner of Karelia is far easier for Russia to de-escalate and retreat from than let's say Estonia.

Good summary.

[crazy canuck]

CC may I recommend you watch the video?

The video is about the suggested folly of expecting Russia vs. a NATO country happen in a scenario where escalation into  a war against whole of NATO is a near-certainty. For example attacking a Baltic state would no doubt drag Poland in as a bare minimum and it'd escalate from there as not even Putin can doubt NATO's resolve to partake in defending those countries. And of course there's the tiny detail that Russia is in no shape to undertake such a plan.

But what if, as the video suggests, Russia pokes at the remotest areas of Finland such as saying they need X area as a security buffer and move in? This would:

a) potentially make it less likely that NATO countries -and the video doesn't limit this to Trump's or other's USA- and their leaders/population can be convinced to mobilise for war because of a corner of Karelia
YET it would still be a big hit in the belief in Article 5 if they didn't honor it

and

b) if NATO countries DO honor Article 5 to defend the remotest corner of Karelia, then the remotest corner of Karelia is far easier for Russia to de-escalate and retreat from than let's say Estonia.

I did watch it, and if you listen carefully to the caveats he makes about the assumptions necessary for his scenario to make any sense, you will see (or hear) that his first assumption is that NATO will not function as designed, but instead it will effectively cease to exist according to its own founding Charter. 

The folks who listened to this video without keeping the opening assumptions carefully in mind might be lulled into thinking it is plausable.  But so long as NATO is actually NATO his scenario is not possible.

[Tamas]

CC may I recommend you watch the video?

The video is about the suggested folly of expecting Russia vs. a NATO country happen in a scenario where escalation into  a war against whole of NATO is a near-certainty. For example attacking a Baltic state would no doubt drag Poland in as a bare minimum and it'd escalate from there as not even Putin can doubt NATO's resolve to partake in defending those countries. And of course there's the tiny detail that Russia is in no shape to undertake such a plan.

But what if, as the video suggests, Russia pokes at the remotest areas of Finland such as saying they need X area as a security buffer and move in? This would:

a) potentially make it less likely that NATO countries -and the video doesn't limit this to Trump's or other's USA- and their leaders/population can be convinced to mobilise for war because of a corner of Karelia
YET it would still be a big hit in the belief in Article 5 if they didn't honor it

and

b) if NATO countries DO honor Article 5 to defend the remotest corner of Karelia, then the remotest corner of Karelia is far easier for Russia to de-escalate and retreat from than let's say Estonia.

I did watch it, and if you listen carefully to the caveats he makes about the assumptions necessary for his scenario to make any sense, you will see (or hear) that his first assumption is that NATO will not function as designed, but instead it will effectively cease to exist according to its own founding Charter. 

The folks who listened to this video without keeping the opening assumptions carefully in mind might be lulled into thinking it is plausable.  But so long as NATO is actually NATO his scenario is not possible.

Maybe, but then you seem to ignore that NATO does not have to cease being NATO in reality. It only needs to do so in Putin's head. The same head where marching into Ukraine unopposed was a done deal.

[Grey Fox]

I see it being reported in Twitter that Gen Zaluzhny has been fired.

Now, the Ukrainians are denying it.

[Barrister]

I see it being reported in Twitter that Gen Zaluzhny has been fired.

Now, the Ukrainians are denying it.

Yes, that's now also coming across.