Ukraine

[leicsmac]

1 hour ago, when_you're_smiling said:

I think it’s more really trying to warn Europe against complacency. I think it did get complacent with regards to Ukraine. Even with months of building up military on the Ukrainian border, we were all still shocked when they went over. There’s a build up on the Estonian border been going on for a few months now. Obviously Russia say it’s just training and a reaction to NATO, but they said the same thing about Ukraine.

 

You’d like to think it’s a bluff again given Estonia’s a NATO member and they won’t do something, but we’ve been wrong before. I really do think if Trump gets in Russia could invade Estonia and Trump would just shrug his shoulders at best. Then it’s up to Europe as to what happens next. 

I do think, as per above, that actually attacking a NATO member is crossing a line that leads to awful places for everyone, and Putin knows this.

 

However, Trump is the wildcard, as you say.

 

 

1 hour ago, MPH said:

 

 

the obvious answer to that is what makes Putin think he can taken on NATO if he can’t even  take Ukraine?

 

 

it’s just scaremongering.

 

whether  Russia end up taking Ukraine or not, he’s been absolutely embarrassed by their resistance- rhetoric is the only weapon Russia have left..

That's another fair point. NATO conventional forces, in all likelihood, defeat Russian ones in the field reasonably handily.

 

That being said, conventional victory in the field is far from the only big element in this equation.

[leicsmac]

1 hour ago, Blarmy said:

I wasn’t, and I am not even close to being an expert. It was the organised violence in the World Cup that made me realise what may happen.  It pointed to a certain mindset.

 

NATO never should have pulled out of Ukraine when Russia was amassing forces. It showed weakness, and people like Putin love to see that. 

 

Again, I’m not an expert, but part of me feels that we should just go in and liberate Ukraine - the full force of NATO would make short work of it. We seem to be inevitably heading towards something worse than that.

I agree about the short work, but then that is really gambling with the idea that Putin, facing conventional defeat and a horrific loss of face, wouldn't then decide to take things to the next level and extend the Russian "survival of the state is threatened" condition for release of nuclear weapons to that particular situation. It may be that he chooses the side of sanity and accepts defeat, but would anyone really want to gamble the future of human civilisation on it?

 

I hope that you're wrong about the "something worse", because that is something very, very bad indeed.

 

59 minutes ago, Salisbury Fox said:

If you want peace, prepare for war. Like it or not the US is becoming a more unpredictable ally and so Europe needs to be able to demonstrate that they have the nerve for a fight. Estonia just recognises the threat more than most.

 

Putin is quite capable of destabilising countries without invading anyway, look at his use of the little green men and his meddling with Moldova via Transnistria which is ongoing.

TBH I think that's being done enough (or any more wouldn't really change much given the current strategic situation) by those that need to do it anyway, so it all sounds just a bit redundantly jingoistic to me.

[Salisbury Fox]

8 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

I agree about the short work, but then that is really gambling with the idea that Putin, facing conventional defeat and a horrific loss of face, wouldn't then decide to take things to the next level and extend the Russian "survival of the state is threatened" condition for release of nuclear weapons to that particular situation. It may be that he chooses the side of sanity and accepts defeat, but would anyone really want to gamble the future of human civilisation on it?

 

I hope that you're wrong about the "something worse", because that is something very, very bad indeed.

 

TBH I think that's being done enough (or any more wouldn't really change much given the current strategic situation) by those that need to do it anyway, so it all sounds just a bit redundantly jingoistic to me.

No one is threatening the Russian state, that’s just propaganda used as justification for their nonsense. The west has been carefully escalating its response and with each escalation it has shown that the nuclear threats are empty.  Of course there is a need for a continuation of measured action but it would be monumentally naive to believe that Russia will behave without understanding that there would be very severe consequences if it doesn’t. The Muscovite mindset is well evidenced in Putin’s own essay after all.

 

I’m sure that those closer to the borders of Russia, or with experience of Soviet occupation would not agree that preparing for war with a state that continues to remark of the need to extend their sphere of influence is just being redundantly jingoistic.

[leicsmac]

5 minutes ago, Salisbury Fox said:

No one is threatening the Russian state, that’s just propaganda used as justification for their nonsense. The west has been carefully escalating its response and with each escalation it has shown that the nuclear threats are empty.  Of course there is a need for a continuation of measured action but it would be monumentally naive to believe that Russia will behave without understanding that there would be very severe consequences if it doesn’t. The Muscovite mindset is well evidenced in Putin’s own essay after all.

 

I’m sure that those closer to the borders of Russia, or with experience of Soviet occupation would not agree that preparing for war with a state that continues to remark of the need to extend their sphere of influence is just being redundantly jingoistic.

I think there's a misunderstanding here - of course no one is threatening the Russian state, it's just a possibility that should NATO and Russian forces actually clash in the field, the time may come when Putin thinks (italicised for emphasis) that is the case. It's a reasonable thing to say the nuclear threats are empty for now, but the thing about such threats is you only need to be wrong once.

 

The point I'm making is the comments made today by the Estonian PM and possible courses of action directly resulting from it have absolutely zero effect on the strategic situation and so I'm not sure what the practical point of them was. Perhaps there doesn't need to be a practical point, though.

[Blarmy]

38 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

I agree about the short work, but then that is really gambling with the idea that Putin, facing conventional defeat and a horrific loss of face, wouldn't then decide to take things to the next level and extend the Russian "survival of the state is threatened" condition for release of nuclear weapons to that particular situation. It may be that he chooses the side of sanity and accepts defeat, but would anyone really want to gamble the future of human civilisation on it?

 

I hope that you're wrong about the "something worse", because that is something very, very bad indeed.

 

TBH I think that's being done enough (or any more wouldn't really change much given the current strategic situation) by those that need to do it anyway, so it all sounds just a bit redundantly jingoistic to me.

Trust me I’m aware of the risks. I just have this feeling it will happen anyway and history will (at some point in the future) show we left it too long. We are now two years in, two years of Putin digging in mentally, dealing with dissent, upping the propoganda. Pot commitment if you will. A short sharp shock the moment Russia invaded may turn out to have been the best option. 

[leicsmac]

Just now, Blarmy said:

Trust me I’m aware of the risks. I just have this feeling it will happen anyway and history will (at some point in the future) show we left it too long. We are now two years in, two years of Putin digging in mentally, dealing with dissent, upping the propoganda. Pot commitment if you will. A short sharp shock the moment Russia invaded may turn out to have been the best option. 

You could well be right, I hope you're wrong, because down that road there will likely be no one with the time, ability and inclination to record history and what happened at all.

[Blarmy]

2 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

You could well be right, I hope you're wrong, because down that road there will likely be no one with the time, ability and inclination to record history and what happened at all.

I hope I’m wrong too. 

[Salisbury Fox]

4 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

I think there's a misunderstanding here - of course no one is threatening the Russian state, it's just a possibility that should NATO and Russian forces actually clash in the field, the time may come when Putin thinks (italicised for emphasis) that is the case. It's a reasonable thing to say the nuclear threats are empty for now, but the thing about such threats is you only need to be wrong once.

 

The point I'm making is the comments made today by the Estonian PM and possible courses of action directly resulting from it have absolutely zero effect on the strategic situation and so I'm not sure what the practical point of them was. Perhaps there doesn't need to be a practical point, though.

Estonia are in effect only saying what our own Chief of the General Staff is saying with regards to preparing for war. 

[leicsmac]

9 minutes ago, Salisbury Fox said:

Estonia are in effect only saying what our own Chief of the General Staff is saying with regards to preparing for war. 

And naturally what you'd expect a military man in his position to say, especially when in his viewpoint the military has been underfunded and he needs to fight his corner for government resources.

[Salisbury Fox]

8 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

And naturally what you'd expect a military man in his position to say, especially when in his viewpoint the military has been underfunded and he needs to fight his corner for government resources.

Our Army like most other European armies have been underfunded true, however I don’t see why you feel Estonia pointing out the need to prepare for war is anymore unnecessary than the numerous others who are saying the same thing across the whole continent. The fact that we have a lack of Artillery shells for Ukraine alone should reinforce the urgency.

[leicsmac]

5 minutes ago, Salisbury Fox said:

Our Army like most other European armies have been underfunded true, however I don’t see why you feel Estonia pointing out the need to prepare for war is anymore unnecessary than the numerous others who are saying the same thing across the whole continent. The fact that we have a lack of Artillery shells for Ukraine alone should reinforce the urgency.

I do think that all those comments are reasonably unnecessary so long as the strategic situation re. escalation remains the same tbh.

 

I do agree that more ammunition for Ukraine is really needed, but for me it's reasonably obvious that Russia expanding their want for war into a NATO nation only ends one way and that's been the case for several decades now and will continue to be that way so long as both NATO and Russia have nuclear weapons, barring either party being willing to take a catastrophic loss of face by losing a conventional war and doing nothing more, which I honestly can't see, or Trump simply rolling out the red carpet and not engaging Putin at all. What was said today by the Estonian PM and what was said by the Chief of the Defence Staff doesn't change that.

[Salisbury Fox]

7 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

I do think that all those comments are reasonably unnecessary so long as the strategic situation re. escalation remains the same tbh.

 

I do agree that more ammunition for Ukraine is really needed, but for me it's reasonably obvious that Russia expanding their want for war into a NATO nation only ends one way and that's been the case for several decades now and will continue to be that way so long as both NATO and Russia have nuclear weapons, barring either party being willing to take a catastrophic loss of face by losing a conventional war and doing nothing more, which I honestly can't see, or Trump simply rolling out the red carpet and not engaging Putin at all. What was said today by the Estonian PM and what was said by the Chief of the Defence Staff doesn't change that.

So we shouldn’t poke the bear for risk of them going nuclear in Ukraine, but there’s no concern over Russia having any further territorial ambitions as we have nukes.  I think you are underestimating the mindset and the hybrid nature of warfare being employed, but I will leave it there as I can see we are going to disagree. 

[leicsmac]

Just now, Salisbury Fox said:

So we shouldn’t poke the bear for risk of them going nuclear in Ukraine, but there’s no concern over Russia having any further territorial ambitions as we have nukes.  I think you are underestimating the mindset and the hybrid nature of warfare being employed, but I will leave it there as I can see we are going to disagree. 

No, I absolutely think that maximum support for Ukraine up to the level of NATO troops actually meeting Russian ones face to face there should be given, but I also think there is a very big difference between the Russians going after NATO members and non-NATO members simply because of Article 5. That could be a mistake and the other NATO members (particularly one headed up by Trump) wouldn't get involved if somewhere like Estonia was attacked, though.

 

Perhaps I am thinking too linearly about the way things would go, but I'll leave it there too.

[MPH]

2 hours ago, leicsmac said:

I do think, as per above, that actually attacking a NATO member is crossing a line that leads to awful places for everyone, and Putin knows this.

 

However, Trump is the wildcard, as you say.

 

 

That's another fair point. NATO conventional forces, in all likelihood, defeat Russian ones in the field reasonably handily.

 

That being said, conventional victory in the field is far from the only big element in this equation.

 

so my only conclusion is that there is no full scale war scenario in which ‘ the motherland’ comes out of this  victorious 

 

They know any invasion of a NATO country gets a swift response and any nuke fired first  will be met with a likewise response.

[leicsmac]

Just now, MPH said:

 

so my only conclusion is that there is no full scale war scenario in which ‘ the motherland’ comes out of this  victorious 

 

They know any invasion of a NATO country gets a swift response and any nuke fired first  will be met with a likewise response.

Precisely this.

[Salisbury Fox]

13 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

No, I absolutely think that maximum support for Ukraine up to the level of NATO troops actually meeting Russian ones face to face there should be given, but I also think there is a very big difference between the Russians going after NATO members and non-NATO members simply because of Article 5. That could be a mistake and the other NATO members (particularly one headed up by Trump) wouldn't get involved if somewhere like Estonia was attacked, though.

 

Perhaps I am thinking too linearly about the way things would go, but I'll leave it there too.

Apologies, I wasn’t going to respond again but any failure to respond to an attack on a NATO member, even a small one like Estonia, would result in the end of the organisation. I do share your the scepticism about a Trump administration wanting to though.

[st albans fox]

1 hour ago, Salisbury Fox said:

Apologies, I wasn’t going to respond again but any failure to respond to an attack on a NATO member, even a small one like Estonia, would result in the end of the organisation. I do share your the scepticism about a Trump administration wanting to though.

Trump is a lot of things but he wouldn’t want his legacy to be the demise of nato and the expansion of Russia 

a lot of his rhetoric is exactly that 

[Zear0]

25 minutes ago, st albans fox said:

Trump is a lot of things but he wouldn’t want his legacy to be the demise of nato and the expansion of Russia 

a lot of his rhetoric is exactly that 

Quite. Calling out German dependency on Russia energy, and a wider European expectations that they can not spend on defense and hope America will ride to the rescuse, was one of the things he should be credited for. 

[leicsmac]

1 minute ago, Zear0 said:

Quite. Calling out German dependency on Russia energy, and a wider European expectations that they can not spend on defense and hope America will ride to the rescuse, was one of the things he should be credited for. 

.... even when it's done in the name of blatant bombastic self interest?

 

I guess the right thing can be done for the wrong reasons and it remains the right thing.

[Dahnsouff]

1 minute ago, leicsmac said:

.... even when it's done in the name of blatant bombastic self interest?

 

I guess the right thing can be done for the wrong reasons and it remains the right thing.

He is correct to call out Europe for not tending to their own garden, as Europe has the ability to do so, just not the will it seems. If it’s self interest on Trumps part, it has to be secondary in the face of the facts, as denying them is to the detriment of Europe.

[leicsmac]

4 minutes ago, Dahnsouff said:

He is correct to call out Europe for not tending to their own garden, as Europe has the ability to do so, just not the will it seems. If it’s self interest on Trumps part, it has to be secondary in the face of the facts, as denying them is to the detriment of Europe.

It surely is self interest, given additional Russian expansion and weakened allies don't benefit the US.

 

Though whether there is a direct correlation between such increased spending and a change in the overall strategic situation is a very many layered debate and is by no means certain, as per the discussion above.

[Dahnsouff]

8 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

It surely is self interest, given additional Russian expansion and weakened allies don't benefit the US.

 

Though whether there is a direct correlation between such increased spending and a change in the overall strategic situation is a very many layered debate and is by no means certain, as per the discussion above.

We seem like we are approaching an age of increasing security, where security, be it food, energy, climate and perhaps ultimately defensive, become key tenets of any manifesto. I would hope the emergence of this global isolationism, even amongst friends, would drive this further into the light and ideally form a stronger self reliant yet kinder Europe.

 

 

[MPH]

5 hours ago, HighPeakFox said:

Let's not ignore that Putin has basically entirely compromised the Republican Party now - so the USA is close to becoming a rogue state.

 

it basically goes along the lines of trump supporters seem to be pro Russia and those in the Republican Party that don’t like Trump are not. It’s pretty much a 60-40 split if it’s along those lines.

 

https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2023/12/08/about-half-of-republicans-now-say-the-us-is-providing-too-much-aid-to-ukraine/

Edited 25 February by MPH

[Salisbury Fox]

1 hour ago, st albans fox said:

Trump is a lot of things but he wouldn’t want his legacy to be the demise of nato and the expansion of Russia 

a lot of his rhetoric is exactly that 

I hope so, but pressures in the Pacific may see the US pivot naturally meaning Europe needs to build a credible defence for themselves.

[leicsmac]

41 minutes ago, Dahnsouff said:

We seem like we are approaching an age of increasing security, where security, be it food, energy, climate and perhaps ultimately defensive, become key tenets of any manifesto. I would hope the emergence of this global isolationism, even amongst friends, would drive this further into the light and ideally form a stronger self reliant yet kinder Europe.

 

 

Pretty much. And that emphasis on isolationism and different types of "security" leads nowhere good.