|
NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets.
Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source. |
On November 08 2024 04:34 Sent. wrote:Trump advisers already trying their best to give Putin everything he wants while pretending it's a diplomatic victory. Art of the deal in action. Show nested quote +Trump Advisers Push to ‘Freeze’ War in Ukraine, Pause Kyiv’s Bid to Join NATO – WSJ Advisers to President-elect Donald Trump have put forward several proposals that would effectively freeze the war in Ukraine, solidifying Moscow’s territorial gains, the Wall Street Journal reported Wednesday, citing anonymous sources close to Trump. Trump, who criticized outgoing President Joe Biden’s handling of the Ukraine conflict, vowed during his campaign to end the war before he takes office next January. He previously said that his “good relationship” with both President Vladimir Putin and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky would be central to his ability to end the war quickly. According to WSJ, one proposal from within Trump’s transition team involves allowing Moscow to maintain control over 20% of Ukrainian territory, establishing a 1,300-kilometer (800 miles) “demilitarized zone” and blocking Ukraine’s NATO membership for 20 years — all in exchange for continued military aid to deter future Russian aggression. The plan does not include U.S. troops policing the demilitarized zone, nor funding from the U.S. or international bodies like the UN, a Trump transition team member said. “We are not sending American men and women to uphold peace in Ukraine. And we are not paying for it. Get the Poles, Germans, British, and French to do it,” the person was quoted as saying. “We can do training and other support but the barrel of the gun is going to be European.” Another proposal reportedly involves freezing battle lines and withholding U.S. arms from Ukraine unless it enters peace talks with Russia. This plan was allegedly drafted by two former chiefs of the National Security Council during Trump’s first term, Reuters reported in June. WSJ noted a third, less defined plan by a candidate for a high-level cabinet position that would prioritize a ceasefire, potentially requiring Kyiv to make significant concessions. The only proposed approach that avoids a “major win” for Russia reportedly comes from former Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, a potential candidate to lead the Pentagon, though details were not provided. It remains unclear which plan Trump will pursue to fulfill his campaign pledge to end the Ukraine war. “[Trump] makes his own calls on national-security issues,” a former National Security Council aide told WSJ. Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov described the proposals as “abstract” but did not rule out a phone call between Russian President Vladimir Putin and Trump before the U.S. presidential inauguration in January. https://www.themoscowtimes.com/2024/11/07/trump-advisers-push-to-freeze-war-in-ukraine-pause-kyivs-bid-to-join-nato-wsj-a86935 This may get Europeans to spend more, but that money will be spent on preparing for an Atlantic divorce.
That's really interesting that they expect Europeans to police the DMZ.
I'm not sure how feasible that is given the state of armed forces in the EU.
To say nothing of political support for such a solution.
|
On November 09 2024 17:59 pmp10 wrote:Show nested quote +On November 08 2024 04:34 Sent. wrote:Trump advisers already trying their best to give Putin everything he wants while pretending it's a diplomatic victory. Art of the deal in action. Trump Advisers Push to ‘Freeze’ War in Ukraine, Pause Kyiv’s Bid to Join NATO – WSJ Advisers to President-elect Donald Trump have put forward several proposals that would effectively freeze the war in Ukraine, solidifying Moscow’s territorial gains, the Wall Street Journal reported Wednesday, citing anonymous sources close to Trump. Trump, who criticized outgoing President Joe Biden’s handling of the Ukraine conflict, vowed during his campaign to end the war before he takes office next January. He previously said that his “good relationship” with both President Vladimir Putin and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky would be central to his ability to end the war quickly. According to WSJ, one proposal from within Trump’s transition team involves allowing Moscow to maintain control over 20% of Ukrainian territory, establishing a 1,300-kilometer (800 miles) “demilitarized zone” and blocking Ukraine’s NATO membership for 20 years — all in exchange for continued military aid to deter future Russian aggression. The plan does not include U.S. troops policing the demilitarized zone, nor funding from the U.S. or international bodies like the UN, a Trump transition team member said. “We are not sending American men and women to uphold peace in Ukraine. And we are not paying for it. Get the Poles, Germans, British, and French to do it,” the person was quoted as saying. “We can do training and other support but the barrel of the gun is going to be European.” Another proposal reportedly involves freezing battle lines and withholding U.S. arms from Ukraine unless it enters peace talks with Russia. This plan was allegedly drafted by two former chiefs of the National Security Council during Trump’s first term, Reuters reported in June. WSJ noted a third, less defined plan by a candidate for a high-level cabinet position that would prioritize a ceasefire, potentially requiring Kyiv to make significant concessions. The only proposed approach that avoids a “major win” for Russia reportedly comes from former Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, a potential candidate to lead the Pentagon, though details were not provided. It remains unclear which plan Trump will pursue to fulfill his campaign pledge to end the Ukraine war. “[Trump] makes his own calls on national-security issues,” a former National Security Council aide told WSJ. Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov described the proposals as “abstract” but did not rule out a phone call between Russian President Vladimir Putin and Trump before the U.S. presidential inauguration in January. https://www.themoscowtimes.com/2024/11/07/trump-advisers-push-to-freeze-war-in-ukraine-pause-kyivs-bid-to-join-nato-wsj-a86935 This may get Europeans to spend more, but that money will be spent on preparing for an Atlantic divorce. That's really interesting that they expect Europeans to police the DMZ. I'm not sure how feasible that is given the state of armed forces in the EU. To say nothing of political support for such a solution.
It's a typical Trump solution. Mexico will pay for a wall they don't want, and Europe will pay for a DMZ they don't want. Mission Accomplished!
|
Any peace without Ukraine joining NATO is not peace, its an interlude for Russia to rearm and prepare the next wave.
|
On November 09 2024 18:31 Gorsameth wrote:
Any peace without Ukraine joining NATO is not peace, its an interlude for Russia to rearm and prepare the next wave.
EU membership would also be an alternative. Other reasons nations will veto it though.
EU starting Nato 2 without US could also be an option. Where nations are in both, except US.
|
On November 09 2024 20:02 Yurie wrote:Show nested quote +On November 09 2024 18:31 Gorsameth wrote:
Any peace without Ukraine joining NATO is not peace, its an interlude for Russia to rearm and prepare the next wave. EU membership would also be an alternative. Other reasons nations will veto it though. EU starting Nato 2 without US could also be an option. Where nations are in both, except US.
EU is (more or less) a trade agreement. They do not have their own EU army. You could, of course, make alliances outside of NATO (Which tbf is what Sweden and Finland had before they joined).
|
On November 09 2024 20:46 Excludos wrote:Show nested quote +On November 09 2024 20:02 Yurie wrote:On November 09 2024 18:31 Gorsameth wrote:
Any peace without Ukraine joining NATO is not peace, its an interlude for Russia to rearm and prepare the next wave. EU membership would also be an alternative. Other reasons nations will veto it though. EU starting Nato 2 without US could also be an option. Where nations are in both, except US. EU is (more or less) a trade agreement. They do not have their own EU army. You could, of course, make alliances outside of NATO (Which tbf is what Sweden and Finland had before they joined).
Yes there isn't an EU army. Just as there isn't a NATO one. EU does have a defence clause, similar to NATO.
https://www.europarl.europa.eu/meetdocs/2009_2014/documents/sede/dv/sede200612mutualdefsolidarityclauses_/sede200612mutualdefsolidarityclauses_en.pdf
Mutual defence clause (Article 42.7 TEU)
If a Member State is the victim of armed aggression on its territory, the other Member States
shall have towards it an obligation of aid and assistance by all the means in their power, in
accordance with Article 51 of the United Nations Charter. This shall not prejudice the specific
character of the security and defence policy of certain Member States.
Commitments and cooperation in this area shall be consistent with commitments under the
North Atlantic Treaty Organisation, which, for those States which are members of it, remains
the foundation of their collective defence and the forum for its implementation.
|
On November 09 2024 21:08 Yurie wrote:Show nested quote +On November 09 2024 20:46 Excludos wrote:On November 09 2024 20:02 Yurie wrote:On November 09 2024 18:31 Gorsameth wrote:
Any peace without Ukraine joining NATO is not peace, its an interlude for Russia to rearm and prepare the next wave. EU membership would also be an alternative. Other reasons nations will veto it though. EU starting Nato 2 without US could also be an option. Where nations are in both, except US. EU is (more or less) a trade agreement. They do not have their own EU army. You could, of course, make alliances outside of NATO (Which tbf is what Sweden and Finland had before they joined). Yes there isn't an EU army. Just as there isn't a NATO one. EU does have a defence clause, similar to NATO. https://www.europarl.europa.eu/meetdocs/2009_2014/documents/sede/dv/sede200612mutualdefsolidarityclauses_/sede200612mutualdefsolidarityclauses_en.pdfShow nested quote +Mutual defence clause (Article 42.7 TEU)
If a Member State is the victim of armed aggression on its territory, the other Member States
shall have towards it an obligation of aid and assistance by all the means in their power, in
accordance with Article 51 of the United Nations Charter. This shall not prejudice the specific
character of the security and defence policy of certain Member States.
Commitments and cooperation in this area shall be consistent with commitments under the
North Atlantic Treaty Organisation, which, for those States which are members of it, remains
the foundation of their collective defence and the forum for its implementation.
Nato does have standards, regular joint training... It's the closest you can get to one army. The military capacity of nato is huge but it would be weird without the states in it. I find it crazy how putin managed to turn the country which had literally communist witch hunts to get the same group to become prosoviet Russia 😂
|
On November 09 2024 21:08 Yurie wrote:Show nested quote +On November 09 2024 20:46 Excludos wrote:On November 09 2024 20:02 Yurie wrote:On November 09 2024 18:31 Gorsameth wrote:
Any peace without Ukraine joining NATO is not peace, its an interlude for Russia to rearm and prepare the next wave. EU membership would also be an alternative. Other reasons nations will veto it though. EU starting Nato 2 without US could also be an option. Where nations are in both, except US. EU is (more or less) a trade agreement. They do not have their own EU army. You could, of course, make alliances outside of NATO (Which tbf is what Sweden and Finland had before they joined). Yes there isn't an EU army. Just as there isn't a NATO one. EU does have a defence clause, similar to NATO. https://www.europarl.europa.eu/meetdocs/2009_2014/documents/sede/dv/sede200612mutualdefsolidarityclauses_/sede200612mutualdefsolidarityclauses_en.pdfShow nested quote +Mutual defence clause (Article 42.7 TEU)
If a Member State is the victim of armed aggression on its territory, the other Member States
shall have towards it an obligation of aid and assistance by all the means in their power, in
accordance with Article 51 of the United Nations Charter. This shall not prejudice the specific
character of the security and defence policy of certain Member States.
Commitments and cooperation in this area shall be consistent with commitments under the
North Atlantic Treaty Organisation, which, for those States which are members of it, remains
the foundation of their collective defence and the forum for its implementation.
The devil is in the details on this one. If we look at the referenced United Nations Charter Article 51, it states that despite the existence of the UN, member states have the right to act in individual or collective self-defense "unless and until the UN Security Council says otherwise."
The Lisbon provision contains three parts, each of which satisfies a different constituency:
1. Mutual defense for those who want to participate.
2. Concession to "certain Member States" that are historically neutral (e.g., Austria, Ireland), which is what "specific character" means. The mutual defense provisions of the Lisbon Treaty are not meant to override national neutrality policies. North Atlantic Treaty obligations are; that is why we don't consider NATO member states to have "neutral" foreign policies whereas we do consider some EU members to have them.
3. Deconfliction with NATO: basically, recognition that NATO-EU states are going to put NATO first and the EU won't try to emerge as a competing collective security alliance.
The general consensus is that "an obligation of aid and assistance by all the means in their power" could mean it's sufficient to provide aid in terms of arms, wares and financial sanction, which would also be more in line with that the purpose of the EU actually is. Article 42.7 have only been invoked once, by France in 2015 after the terrorist attack.
France specifically requested the other Member States to provide increased contributions to the international fight against terrorism. This allowed France to reinforce its Opération Sentinelle, launched after the January 2015 Charlie Hebdo terrorist attacks, which deployed around 10 000 soldiers and 4 700 police and gendarmes.
Then there's the pragmatic point: You're right that NATO doesn't have a standing army, but they do have a standing joint military command structure, and regularly performs command post and field exercises. NATO have standing HQs, maritime groups and forces under its command. In a wartime footing, this includes up to and including nuclear deterrent through the nations. NATO has the ability to rapidly take command of a joint defence effort in the field. EU does not have this capability.
Generally, EU and NATO is a symbiotic relationship, where EU is better suited to coordinate logistics and investments, while NATO is much more focused on the actual fighting aspects of war.
|
Lots of talk about the Russian economy. One thing I've been reading about is how apartment sales have dropped dramatically. Like Moscow and St Petersburg are down in half but other places are dropping over 80%!! At first I thought it was because of the economy struggling, or because they have lost so many people who would be buying them. Those I'm sure are factors but also Russia gov has stopped subsidizing mortgages, before you could get a mortgage for 9% (which still sounds crazy) but now you are up to the 21%. That will totally crash the market. First the sales drop dramatically and then eventually the prices will just fall to the basement.
https://www.themoscowtimes.com/2024/10/18/russias-real-estate-market-rocked-by-the-end-of-generous-mortgage-subsidies-a86738
Also, in funny news. Some prankster sent a message to all teachers that they needed to make tinfoil hats to protect from Nato satellite influence. Then the teachers made videos and pictures with their hats on, the flags and often pictures of putin. funny shit.
https://www.rferl.org/a/belarusian-prankster-tricks-russian-teachers-tinfoil-hats-foreign-threat/33198243.html
Not the best source, for better and more pictures just google image Russian teachers tinfoil
|
|
|
Ukraine might have, given their soviet past, easier than most time overcoming two of the three major obstacles to acquiring nuclear weapons, but I struggle to think about the way they would get their hands on weapon grade uranium.
|
United States41554 Posts
On November 15 2024 01:08 Silvanel wrote:
Ukraine might have, given their soviet past, easier than most time overcoming two of the three major obstacles to acquiring nuclear weapons, but I struggle to think about the way they would get their hands on weapon grade uranium.
I did some minor google research and it seems that they're already working on an enrichment plant. They started when the war started. Ukraine mines its own uranium but previously shipped it to Russia for enrichment and then bought it back for domestic power usage. They were cut off when the war started and had to start building their own facilities to ensure continuity of supply.
https://world-nuclear-news.org/Articles/Energoatom-looking-to-produce-nuclear-fuel-by-2026
For civilian use only, naturally. Just like Iran's program.
|
That's why I specifically said "weapon grade". The difference between power plant level enrichment and weapon grade is far larger than most realize. Iran has run its enrichment plants for many years and still doesn't have the bomb...
|
|
|
Olaf Scholz called Vladimir Putin and discussed the potential of peace negotiations. I think the timing is terrible because it's very easy to make it look like American leadership was the only thing keeping Germany, and by extension Europe, from pushing Ukraine to the negotiating table. I wouldn't agree with such a statement but I'm not sure what was the purpose of this phone call.
Germany's Scholz calls Putin for first time in 2 yearsGermany's chancellor and Russia's president have spoken directly for the first time since late 2022, according to a government spokesperson. This follows soon after Donald Trump's US election win. German Chancellor Olaf Scholz and Russian President Vladimir Putin reportedly spoke on the phone for around an hour on Friday, government spokesman Steffen Hebestreit said in Berlin. Scholz was said to have urged Putin to enter negotiations for a "just and lasting" peace with Ukraine. The spokesman also said Scholz had spoken with Ukraine's President Volodymyr Zelenskyy beforehand, and that the chancellor had reiterated Germany would support Ukraine for as long as necessary. Insiders in Scholz's government issued an off-the-record summary of the call to various outlets, including DW, offering more details. They said that Scholz condemned the war of aggression against Ukraine, "which has brought death, suffering and destruction to Ukraine for more than 1,000 days now." "The chancellor particularly condemned Russian air attacks against civilian infrastructure in Ukraine," they said. Scholz also criticized the potential deployment of North Korean troops in the conflict as a "serious escalation." The German leader called on Putin to withdraw Russian troops from Ukraine and "pressed for a willingness from Russia for serious negotiations with Ukraine with the goal of a just and lasting peace." The chancellor, whose time in the office may now be limited after developments in Berlin last week, was also said to have "emphasized Germany's unshakable commitment to support Ukraine in its defensive battle for as long as is necessary." He told Putin that as a result of this, the Russian leader could not assume time was on his side. The two leaders agreed to remain in contact on the issue, according to the insiders. Berlin's government was also in the process of informing NATO allies of the details. The call comes within 10 days of news of Donald Trump's election win in the US, potentially heralding a change in position in Washington, and little more than a week after news that Olaf Scholz might be leaving his post fairly soon after. Scholz and Trump held a call on Sunday. The German chancellor told the Süddeutsche Zeitung newspaper that he thought Trump had more nuance to his positions than is usually assumed. "I did get the impression that he has a more nuanced position than is often assumed here in Germany," Scholz said, adding that his phone call with Trump on Sunday was "very detailed and good". (...) https://www.dw.com/en/germanys-scholz-calls-putin-for-first-time-in-2-years/a-70796017
Polish PM Donald Tusk praised Scholz's actions on Twitter and I don't expect any political conflicts because of the call. I'm mostly worried about useful idiots using this as a "proof" of European spinelessness.
|
War strategy buffs, I have a strategy I'd like to propose and get your opinions on how it would work if they did it.
+ Show Spoiler +I have no expectation that this is actually going to happen, I just think it would help and I have not read any what ifs on this scenario. What it would do well and what it would do poorly I'm interested in hearing about. Why they would not do it not so much because I think we all know those 
I think Poland, the Baltics, Norway and Finland should all prepare for war and move their militaries to an obvious offensive position for "war games". Canada and Sweden prepare for taking the Artic. The rest of the countries that support Ukraine should also move their militaries as if to defend the NATO countries.
At the same time they should remove all restrictions on Ukraine from using western made weapons and Ukraine should announce an massive conscription.
I believe this would force Russia to slow their offense and defend against a possible attack. If they do not, it makes it painfully clear that their propaganda of fear of a NATO attack is complete horse shit as they are defending against offensive posturing.
It would energize the Ukrainian people as they would feel supported and as if they had a real chance to defeat Russia.
If Russia keeps going Poland, Finland and others could decide to take back their historic land (or threaten it) unless Russia returns to its pre 2014 boarders. They should also send words of support and promises to support any uprising anywhere in Russia. (and perhaps actually send military supplies).
Also, of this would require firing any bullets or risking any troops. It would also be great practice for western militaries.
Sure you are risking escalation, but Russia knows they can't fight everyone even with their tight allies of Iran and NK. I doubt their shadow allies helping them economically are going to enter.
I don't think it would like instantly win the war or anything like that, but I think it would put immense pressure on Putin and his strategic staff. Waste huge amount of their resources, including time and planning, I don't think Russia would escalate because other than nukes they are maxed out and currently they could still turn back, and the powerbrokers can keep getting rich off their peoples cheap labour and selling resources abroad.
The Russian people themselves would be all the sudden scared because Ukraine could and will hit them anywhere and all these other militaries who are fresh are perched right outside their boarders. All the places that hate Russia in Russia might also become emboldened.
Tear my strategy apart, support it. Interested on how you think it would work. (not that you don't think they would do it, because I know and agree with that.)
|
Your proposing invading a nuclear power who's leaders know they will not survive the fight, no matter which way it goes.
Your telling Putin you don't believe in MAD while pointing a gun at his face.
Nuclear threats tend to be overrated and brought up to much but this is the literal situation nukes exist to stop, Russia would have no choice but to launch because there is no further line behind them to move to. A nuclear arsenal as the ultimate deterrent stops working when you don't use them against an existential threat that is invading your heartland with the goal of ending your regime.
|
Russian Federation596 Posts
On November 17 2024 01:00 Billyboy wrote:
Tear my strategy apart, support it. Interested on how you think it would work. (not that you don't think they would do it, because I know and agree with that.)
a) Any kind of claim about "returning historic lands", nevermind actually doing something even as a supposed preparation to do so, will completely undermine any diplomatic and moral leverage West currently has, because it's their main point of blame towards Putin, that in modern era borders do not change based on historical claims. If Western countries would declare that they are ready to do so, nobody in the world would care about them enforcing international rules-based order, or whatever. Western countries had already undermined their position in that regard with all Serbia/Iraq/Lybia/Afghanistan stuff, but at least they had a justification point of "changing oppresive government/liberating opressed group of people" etc. Good old war for territory coming from them will bury UN in the dust, and that's not what West wants. Even threats of those will still do a lot of damage.
b) About "moving to forward positions" - check out the time needed to deploy against Iraq both times. It would take months to move force capable to invade Russia by land, forward elements coming would need to be quartered somewhere along with their equipment, nevermind that it would cost a ton. Western militaries are expensive. Germany takes years to put a single brigade in Lithuania, and that's a European economic powerhouse, 3rd economy of the world in nominal values.
There is already quite a bunch of complaining in Western countries about increased expenses due to Ukraine support, imagine what the cost of moving troops large enough to pose a serious threat of land invasion to Russia would do. AfD and similar parties would get a huge popularity boost due to that.
c) It would be the best way to support Kremlin propaganda and actually rally people around Putin, not visa versa. There are many people in Russia who think that offensive war in Ukraine is unjust, who grow tired of news about war, incoming coffins, economic problems, increased crackdown on Internet, etc. But if directly threatened to be invaded - people will forget about that, and no justification will help with that.
d) People in the West are not overly eager to risk actually dying for Ukraine, even if such risk is propositional. Some eager to donate, many don't mind paying some from their taxes or losing from potential income, but risking to die will be whole other story. Who wanted to do so, have already enlisted in Ukrainian foreign legion.
e) What uprising? If separatist, then you greatly exaggerate the amount of national tentions within Russia. The only such region is Chechnya, and currently it's firmly under Kadyrov's clan. Sure, it will be problem for Russia some day, but not while Putin is in charge.
If you are talking about civil protest, then it could only happen from within the military, and it's currently lacking any kind of Bonaparts. Prigozhin tried to be one, and ended up playing with grenades in airplane. If we are talking about hearts and minds in general, then I believe western agencies and media are trying their best for a while now, but we still have what we have. Also see point c) about that.
f) What "massive conscription" in Ukraine? They busify people off the streets for more than a year now, countryside and small towns are basically empty of abled fighting men, Ukrainian parlamentaries are already proposing actually sending employees of military comissariats to the front.
And all this points are about threat of an invasion, we didn't even talk about trying to actually do so. Excluding nuke scenarios for the sake of it. even Iraqi Freedom was a great strain on US and British military resources, basically taking all of their logisitcs capabilites to deploy a force deemed enough to crush the Iraqis. You can shit on Russian military a lot, and in many ways justified in doing so, but they still much better trained, equipped and motivated that Iraq was, especially if you give them Great Patriotic War vibes. Actual invasion will be bloodbath for NATO, even if they win in the end, and the damage to the world's economical, social and political landscape would be far greater than the gains.
P.S. What historic land could Poland possibly take from Russia? I can get Finland with their og Grand Duchy borders, Karela people in Russia, etc, but Poland? Konigsberg and surroundings were never Polish, or do you propose invading Belarus? Though most Polish historic lands are in, well, Ukraine actually.
P.P.S. The best strategy for the West to stop Russia would have been real, heavy sanctions at immediate start of the war. Like closing all the gas and oil on day 1 completely, no fertilizers, no uranium, no nothing. Completely close the borders, no truck from Russia comes out, no ship docking in Western port. Threat to completely block any financial transaction coming in and out of Russia from any bank of any country, be it Turkey, China or whatever.
That would most likely work in terms of causing internal uproar and actually crushing the economy of Russia. However Western countries and people would also take tremendous damage from doing so, some probably to degree of severely reducing the quality of life (like Hungary that is fully dependant on Russian oil). And now even that ship kinda sailed, since Russian economy had time to change the flows of goods and money.
P.P.P.S. Your proposition is, in short, "to defeat Putin, be like Putin". While the whole reason to this thread is proof that this is not the best course of action.
|
On November 17 2024 01:17 Gorsameth wrote:
Your proposing invading a nuclear power who's leaders know they will not survive the fight, no matter which way it goes.
Your telling Putin you don't believe in MAD while pointing a gun at his face.
Nuclear threats tend to be overrated and brought up to much but this is the literal situation nukes exist to stop, Russia would have no choice but to launch because there is no further line behind them to move to. A nuclear arsenal as the ultimate deterrent stops working when you don't use them against an existential threat that is invading your heartland with the goal of ending your regime.
No I'm totally not, re read it.
|
On November 17 2024 03:00 Ardias wrote:Show nested quote +On November 17 2024 01:00 Billyboy wrote:
Tear my strategy apart, support it. Interested on how you think it would work. (not that you don't think they would do it, because I know and agree with that.) a) Any kind of claim about "returning historic lands", nevermind actually doing something even as a supposed preparation to do so, will completely undermine any diplomatic and moral leverage West currently has, because it's their main point of blame towards Putin, that in modern era borders do not change based on historical claims. If Western countries would declare that they are ready to do so, nobody in the world would care about them enforcing international rules-based order, or whatever. Western countries had already undermined their position in that regard with all Serbia/Iraq/Lybia/Afghanistan stuff, but at least they had a justification point of "changing oppresive government/liberating opressed group of people" etc. Good old war for territory coming from them will bury UN in the dust, and that's not what West wants. Even threats of those will still do a lot of damage. b) About "moving to forward positions" - check out the time needed to deploy against Iraq both times. It would take months to move force capable to invade Russia by land, forward elements coming would need to be quartered somewhere along with their equipment, nevermind that it would cost a ton. Western militaries are expensive. Germany takes years to put a single brigade in Lithuania, and that's a European economic powerhouse, 3rd economy of the world in nominal values. There is already quite a bunch of complaining in Western countries about increased expenses due to Ukraine support, imagine what the cost of moving troops large enough to pose a serious threat of land invasion to Russia would do. AfD and similar parties would get a huge popularity boost due to that. c) It would be the best way to support Kremlin propaganda and actually rally people around Putin, not visa versa. There are many people in Russia who think that offensive war in Ukraine is unjust, who grow tired of news about war, incoming coffins, economic problems, increased crackdown on Internet, etc. But if directly threatened to be invaded - people will forget about that, and no justification will help with that. d) People in the West are not overly eager to risk actually dying for Ukraine, even if such risk is propositional. Some eager to donate, many don't mind paying some from their taxes or losing from potential income, but risking to die will be whole other story. Who wanted to do so, have already enlisted in Ukrainian foreign legion. e) What uprising? If separatist, then you greatly exaggerate the amount of national tentions within Russia. The only such region is Chechnya, and currently it's firmly under Kadyrov's clan. Sure, it will be problem for Russia some day, but not while Putin is in charge. If you are talking about civil protest, then it could only happen from within the military, and it's currently lacking any kind of Bonaparts. Prigozhin tried to be one, and ended up playing with grenades in airplane. If we are talking about hearts and minds in general, then I believe western agencies and media are trying their best for a while now, but we still have what we have. Also see point c) about that. f) What "massive conscription" in Ukraine? They busify people off the streets for more than a year now, countryside and small towns are basically empty of abled fighting men, Ukrainian parlamentaries are already proposing actually sending employees of military comissariats to the front. And all this points are about threat of an invasion, we didn't even talk about trying to actually do so. Excluding nuke scenarios for the sake of it. even Iraqi Freedom was a great strain on US and British military resources, basically taking all of their logisitcs capabilites to deploy a force deemed enough to crush the Iraqis. You can shit on Russian military a lot, and in many ways justified in doing so, but they still much better trained, equipped and motivated that Iraq was, especially if you give them Great Patriotic War vibes. Actual invasion will be bloodbath for NATO, even if they win in the end, and the damage to the world's economical, social and political landscape would be far greater than the gains. P.S. What historic land could Poland possibly take from Russia? I can get Finland with their og Grand Duchy borders, Karela people in Russia, etc, but Poland? Konigsberg and surroundings were never Polish, or do you propose invading Belarus? Though most Polish historic lands are in, well, Ukraine actually. P.P.S. The best strategy for the West to stop Russia would have been real, heavy sanctions at immediate start of the war. Like closing all the gas and oil on day 1 completely, no fertilizers, no uranium, no nothing. Completely close the borders, no truck from Russia comes out, no ship docking in Western port. Threat to completely block any financial transaction coming in and out of Russia from any bank of any country, be it Turkey, China or whatever. That would most likely work in terms of causing internal uproar and actually crushing the economy of Russia. However Western countries and people would also take tremendous damage from doing so, some probably to degree of severely reducing the quality of life (like Hungary that is fully dependant on Russian oil). And now even that ship kinda sailed, since Russian economy had time to change the flows of goods and money. P.P.P.S. Your proposition is, in short, "to defeat Putin, be like Putin". While the whole reason to this thread is proof that this is not the best course of action.
Thanks for your thought and effort.
A) that is part of the point. Moral high ground has done nothing, speak in a language the opponent understands.
B) It would be expensive, but so are all military exercises. Russia has shown they are capable and willing to invade countries on their border, practicing what you would need to do has lots of value. It may increase support for them, or it may make the people excited that their politicians are actually doing something. I think the latter, neither is certain.
C)That is a risk, will it make them fearful or bring them together. I suspect just fearful. If the west actually invaded maybe the other. But if Russia didn't take the threat serious they would also get over ran super fast. If they take it seriously think how expensive that would be at what you are currently paying. And how would the Russian population feel about that?
D) The people doing this would all be soldiers, they would be following orders. It takes no new recruiting anywhere but in the Ukraine. And this would forsure help that effort.
E)That was perhaps pie in the sky. My thought is that with all the Muslims and non Slavic Russians dying there is a lot of unrest in those places. I could be completely off base, or maybe if they knew they would be supported and saw Russian as weaker they might try. Might not, not a huge part of the "plan".
F)It would be lowering the age and having people who are avoiding it because they don't think they have a chance to win and don't want to die to slow down the losing. I have no idea how many more it would get, but they could mobilize more. This would 100% make Ukrainians feel supported, and increase moral. How much and for how long though, I don't know.
P.S. More of a threat than anything. Historic lands are BS to begin with not that hard to make up a story for anyone on why they should. Start with Belgorod, and sure scare Belarus, Lukashenko does seem particularly brave.
P.P.S. I agree. Even lots of things to stop Putin from gaining so much power in Russia to being with.
P.P.P.S. It is more about bluffing that you are like Putin to force Putin to spread out his depleted forces. And then if Putin does not react to the bluff they would then have to decided if they take the easy undefended trip to Russia or not. With Ukraine using all their long range weapons it would also be a lot harder, let alone having to defend their borders instead of full offence.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
