I wish the West would arm Ukraine with squadrons of 4.5 gen airframes, fully stocked and layered air defense systems, hundreds of Abrams/Leopard II’s, and setup massive training facilities in bordering NATO counties.
However, putting NATO troops in theatre is such an absurd escalatory risk that I refuse to believe it’s not intentionally designed to prompt a full scale military intervention.
Training troops isn’t a huge escalation, nor is Estonian trainers getting blown up (bad as that would be). But if this policy moves forward, it’s only a matter of time before a dozen, or more, American or British trainers get blown up, and that could very easily ignite that powder keg into something that can’t be contained, because the hawks won’t want it to be.
That kind of defeats the purpose of “help the Ukrainians defeat Russia in Ukraine, to prevent a wider war”.
Disagree, putting troops in support and logistics will free up ukranians to do the heavy lifting. It would still be disingenuous to free up more ukranians to die if you don’t properly arm them.
But, either Putin will continue waging war and restoring the good old Russia of ye old days. Or, Putin can be reasoned with and has limited goals.
Pick a lane and act like it. I’m relatively confident everyone agrees it is lane 1… just some advocate for inaction because reasons.
But getting Ukranians help should start with driving NATO patriots to the Polish Ukranian border and protecting the skies over the western half of the country. From there, assist in training, logistics and definately medical.
Russia is not looking for escalation either. So dead NATO soldiers can easily lead to opening up other lines of weapons… Especially with f16 on the way.
I fully understand, and those are indeed risks. But I said in my last paragraph. I don’t think Russia is looking for that kind of escalation either.
I doubt the escalation of the west will lead to troops in the trenches, but if it leads to combat sorties, closed sky over Ukraine and fully opened arsenals. That’s OK right?
Using a Nuke is not realistically an option as they would isolate themselves from China and put all countries on the fence in the position that they have to choose.
I can also imagine that sanctions will be changed to “nothing regardless of potential use”.
Russia is killing people every day and will continue to do so. When you are afraid to help your neighbor from an aggressor, who will help you when it’s your turn?
…are you seriously claiming that a direct conflict with NATO forces on their borders, or within their occupied territories, wouldn’t change Russia’s strategic calculus in regards to the use of nuclear weapons?
Please, tell me what base of geopolitical knowledge, or Russian military doctrine, are you basing this on?
Because every white paper and analysis of Russian First Strike Doctrine that I’ve read, would seem to fly in the face of your claims. So… please put my mind at rest and show me the sources that I’m missing here.
What proof… you don’t have any proof either… except for the statements by a regime that has been outright lying and bluffing this entire war. And was called on their bluf so many times we lost count.
There is no telling what a power mad dictator will do when threatened. And I agree their calculation on the use of nuclear weapons MIGHT change. But the counterweight to that is that many many more countries will isolate them and the question will be if this moves the needle in any discernible way towards actual use.
And countering my calling out your concern trolling with “no, you are” does not take away that you are here amplifying Kremlin talking points and trying to Stoke fear on the use of nuclear weapons (without actually saying nuclear) by the evil Z idiots.
Edit: jeez it seems the trolls of Lemmygrad are leaking again.
In this report, the author argues that the evidence Russia has lowered its threshold for nuclear use is far from convincing. Rather, Russia’s statements and behavior indicate more a desire to leverage its status as a nuclear power—less a lowering of the threshold than a reminder that escalation is possible and that Russia must therefore be taken seriously.
From your csis source
"There is also talk that Russia is working to develop low-yield nuclear weapons and/or modernizing its nonstrategic nuclear weapons, perhaps with the intent of creating a class of nuclear weapons less likely to draw a nuclear counterattack and are therefore more “usable.”
Also, as I’ve already written, I don’t view flooding Ukraine with Western arms as a significant risk to the escalation ladder. That is not the case for force on force conflict with NATO, especially on Russia’s doorstep. Which again, is laid out in their doctrine.
To clear, I just said to start with those links. You should definitely branch out and spend a lot more time reading up, because clearly you haven’t yet.
Please, finish reading all those documents, and then read some more, and then show me all the white papers, academic articles, or think tank papers that support your position, or disprove mine.
Only time will tell, but so far the caution in escalation is serving the Russians well. And even though I don’t expect NATO troops in any trenches, support roles can work. Training can also be done abroad where it is safer for all involved. There is just the logistics of moving many vs moving few.
I see that putin’s trolls are becoming more articulate. But anyway you are just saying that inaction is the best reaponse, and that’s been proven to be bullshit.
No, I’m saying flood Ukraine with Western arms because it’s worth it.
But putting in active duty NATO troops is a sure fire ticket to an uncontrollable escalation.
I have to admit though, seeing all you keyboard strategists act like force on force conflict between NATO and Russia is no big deal, makes me believe either you’re all genuine idiots, or are actually pushing a coordinated message yourselves. Most likely it’s the former, but that’s just a guess.
Yep, call putins bluff and send in troops and wax the russian military. All this “o no they’re going to escalate” is just giving them more reasons to escalate, because there is no threat of retaliation from NATO/EU.
It’s sadly the case that Ukraine’s allies would rather pull a slow burn on Russia by proxy to try and get it to collapse from inside rather than stand up to them directly.
There are no happy endings on the table at this point, only the choice of when things will become difficult for Europe.
Add comment