A military strategic question

[mapuc]

I guess you have heard about what happen in East Ukraine earlier today.

Little background to my question.

I have on several friends and friends friends wall read things like

It about time we send NATO troops to Ukraine. Here some just want the troops there as a powerful message to Putin

while some want NATO troops to engage the Russian.

Reading such things scares me.

I have posted answers on some of these walls.

I could be wrong, I only remembered what I saw, heard and read what a war between NATO/USA and Russia would lead to.

I wrote that a war would go from conventional to nuclear. If not the leaders came to common sense before a war started or ran out of control.

So was I correct from a military strategic view ?

Markus

[Armistead]

It's not going to happen regardless of the debate...

[mapuc]

Originally Posted by Armistead

It's not going to happen regardless of the debate...

I hope you are right about that.

Markus

[kraznyi_oktjabr]

Markus, The New York Times Thomas Riedman did an interview with Obama which was published in weekend. That interview makes it very clear - although indirectly - that U.S. won't intervene if Russia decides to invade Ukraine. Without U.S. support I don't see NATO intervention either.

[Dread Knot]

Originally Posted by kraznyi_oktjabr

Markus, The New York Times Thomas Riedman did an interview with Obama which was published in weekend. That interview makes it very clear - although indirectly - that U.S. won't intervene if Russia decides to invade Ukraine.

Not to mention that you'd need to go out to the Hyannis links with a crow bar to separate the man from his beloved golf game right now.

[Skybird]

Sending NATO troops to fight Russians in Ukraine would be like sending Russian troops into Mexico.

What do you think the chances are that Russia is insane enough to send combat troops into Mexico?

Different it is with the West trying to get a united Ukraine into NATO, via EU first. They tried to increase such efforts since autumn last year.

By now even the most tired long-sleeper in Washington should have gotten Putin's answer to that attempt, I guess.

[mapuc]

Originally Posted by kraznyi_oktjabr

Markus, The New York Times Thomas Riedman did an interview with Obama which was published in weekend. That interview makes it very clear - although indirectly - that U.S. won't intervene if Russia decides to invade Ukraine. Without U.S. support I don't see NATO intervention either.

Glad to hear that.

We shall of course give a clear message to Putin, withdraw your forces and stop supporting the riot in East Ukraine.

As Pacifist I dislike every speech or acting of steps that could lead to war which is not good.

[kraznyi_oktjabr]

Originally Posted by mapuc

Glad to hear that.

We shall of course give a clear message to Putin, withdraw your forces and stop supporting the riot in East Ukraine.

As Pacifist I dislike every speech or acting of steps that could lead to war which is not good.

Well its unlikely that there would be large scale conflict between NATO and Russia. However current signal from Obama essentially gives Russia free hands in dealing with its interests in Ukraine. Sanctions are unlikely to change Russia's plans if it sees annexation of East Ukraine or installation of puppet regime into Kiev as being within its interest. Word IF is important here as I'm still not sure what Putin's objective exactly is.

In short: no bloodshed for western countries, only for Ukrainians and perhaps Russians.

EDIT: Question for you: How would you demand Putin to essentially declare defeat if there is no serious consequences for ignoring such demands?

[mapuc]

Originally Posted by kraznyi_oktjabr

Well its unlikely that there would be large scale conflict between NATO and Russia. However current signal from Obama essentially gives Russia free hands in dealing with its interests in Ukraine. Sanctions are unlikely to change Russia's plans if it sees annexation of East Ukraine or installation of puppet regime into Kiev as being within its interest. Word IF is important here as I'm still not sure what Putin's objective exactly is.

In short: no bloodshed for western countries, only for Ukrainians and perhaps Russians.

EDIT: Question for you: How would you demand Putin to essentially declare defeat if there is no serious consequences for ignoring such demands?

I really don't know

As all of you wrote there will not be any NATO/US troops in Ukraine if Russia decide to invade. Mostly it wil be a raised fingers or two and some raised voices in EU and USA.

I convinced that Putin would take these sign as a "Do as you like no one will stop you"

Markus

[Skybird]

Originally Posted by mapuc

As Pacifist I dislike every speech or acting of steps that could lead to war which is not good.

There are two ways to understand pacifism.

The one means to reject using aggressive violence in a first strike to force through one's aggressive interests against another one who so far remained non-violent and did not threaten a first strike. But it reserves the right of self-defence, both passive and offensive, on behalf of oneself or other ones depending on one's own help.

The other means to not act even if that means that innocent ones gets slaughtered or become subject of atrocities, because one claims moral superiority by allowing the attacker to commit such atrocities without "lowering oneself to his levels". That is a shame, an offence, a disgrace. You can only chose that without compromsing your morality if you put only your own life and well-being at risk, and nobody else's.

The first pacifist is somebody like me. The latter is somebody who by arguing that he is a "pacifist" actively helps to create the opportunity for crime and atrocity being carried out, he does so by his passivity, and he arrogantly claims moral superiority nevertheless.

One can chose to stay out of other people's conflicts and wars, for many reasons, yes, there were wars I would or have supported, and other wars I considered to be so stupid that I refused to give them my support. But one should really be careful to not mistake the one form of pacifism with the other one. The first understanding of pacifism is wise. The latter is cynical, and despises the suffering and death of legions. If somebody choses to not wanting to enter a conflict because he has no stakes at risk and no interests in it, then he should say so - but he shopuld never claim that he stays out because he feels like a pacifist.

[mapuc]

Originally Posted by Skybird

There are two ways to understand pacifism.

The one means to reject using aggressive violence in a first strike to force through one's aggressive interests against another one who so far remained non-violent and did not threaten a first strike. But it reserves the right of self-defence, both passive and offensive, on behalf of oneself or other ones depending on one's own help.

The other means to not act even if that means that innocent ones gets slaughtered or become subject of atrocities, because one claims moral superiority by allowing the attacker to commit such atrocities without "lowering oneself to his levels". That is a shame, an offence, a disgrace. You can only chose that without compromsing your morality if you put only your own life and well-being at risk, and nobody else's.

The first pacifist is somebody like me. The latter is somebody who by arguing that he is a "pacifist" actively helps to create the opportunity for crime and atrocity being carried out, he does so by his passivity, and he arrogantly claims moral superiority nevertheless.

One can chose to stay out of other people's conflicts and wars, for many reasons, yes, there were wars I would or have supported, and other wars I considered to be so stupid that I refused to give them my support. But one should really be careful to not mistake the one form of pacifism with the other one. The first understanding of pacifism is wise. The latter is cynical, and despises the suffering and death of legions.

Thank you for your reply
I would be 1½ absolutely number one and not nearby number 2.

Markus

[Oberon]

If Russia went into Eastern Ukraine and stayed there, then I could see NATO forces deploying into western Ukraine at a later date, not in order to engage Russian forces, but in order to 'defend Ukraine' against Russia, in a manner not dissimilar to east and west Germany in the cold war.
Honestly though I don't see Russia deploying into eastern Ukraine in force any time soon, not unless something major changes in the meantime.

Either which way, neither NATO or Russia wants to go to war with each other and both will take as many measures as they can to avoid such a thing, however both will also do their best to outsmart the other and gain an advantage wherever they can. It's old Cold War tactics, and we didn't go to war with Russia back then.

[CCIP]

Yeah, exactly - if NATO's involvement was a given, Russia would be behaving very differently here. In fact the main reason for Russia's interference in Ukraine in the first place is to prevent those closer links with NATO and maintain their buffer. If that kind of relationship existed between NATO and the Ukraine already, then Russia's response would be different too. So talking about NATO sending troops is putting the cart before the horse.

Otherwise, the Mexico comparison Skybird made is actually very apt. Even completely ignoring the nuclear factor, there is absolutely nothing whatsoever that NATO would gain fighting a conventional war against Russia in/over Ukraine. NATO has no capacity to win this kind of conflict in any meaningful strategic way.

[Oberon]

NATO is rather overstretched, IIRC a general did warn a while back that if Russia did decide to go full retard and engage Red Storm Rising mode that there's not a great deal NATO could do for the likes of the Baltics, Poland and other bordering nations.
I strongly suspect that this is at least partially deliberate, spending land for time, hoping that the Russian supply train would overstretch itself on its way to Berlin.

But honestly, the chances of Russia doing something as monumentally stupid as that are not particularly high, so I wouldn't lose any sleep over it. Not at the moment anyway.

[Skybird]

Originally Posted by Oberon

If Russia went into Eastern Ukraine and stayed there, then I could see NATO forces deploying into western Ukraine at a later date, not in order to engage Russian forces, but in order to 'defend Ukraine' against Russia, in a manner not dissimilar to east and west Germany in the cold war.
Honestly though I don't see Russia deploying into eastern Ukraine in force any time soon, not unless something major changes in the meantime.

Either which way, neither NATO or Russia wants to go to war with each other and both will take as many measures as they can to avoid such a thing, however both will also do their best to outsmart the other and gain an advantage wherever they can. It's old Cold War tactics, and we didn't go to war with Russia back then.

As I said earlier, I still welcome a split of the Ukraine. It would sort things that currently are muddy, unstructured mess. It would bring stability ot the suffering population in the East. It would bring a clear lijne drawing between NATO and Russia in that part of the world. Further advanatge is that ti would likely cause an economic competition between East and West like it was over Germany, where both germans states served as showrooms for both systems that tried to outshine the other - and although the GDR did loose that cpompetition, it neverthelss was the richest and most well-supplied state in the Warsaw Pact. The Russian could implement law and order int heir part of the Ukraine, increasing stability. Thew west would satill need to dela with the corrupt, criminal gangs forming and owning almost all aspects of the Ukrainian politeska. Plenty of money would be poumped by both sides intoi their respective parts of the Ukraine, which nevertheless should help to improve the situation of the general population.

The Ukrainian state there is now, was a misconception and a stillbirth from day one on, imo. And it borders the description of a failed state.

If you want to anger Putin, give him the East. Its a sack of problems, costs and needed financial investments that all come at Russia'S cost. In chess it would be called a gambit, or a poisoned pawn. Accepeting the offered "advantage" and taking the pawn, comes at a cost that outweighs the material gain.

BTW, Ukraine has threatened the EU with disrupting gas deliveries from Russia to Europe that transit the Ukraine, warning it might take these for itself. And nevertheless let the West pay for it. Nice "friends" Brussels has choosen there! Still not consolidated in their new position - but already blackmailing us.