A military strategic question

[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.

[Von Tonner]

A news report written back in 2009 provides interesting insight to the present and to Putin's thinking on what he refers to as "Little Russia"

"Putin is not known for his tact when speaking of Russia's western neighbor, which declared independence from the Soviet Union in 1991. In April 2008, a source told Russia's Kommersant newspaper how Putin described Ukraine to George Bush at a NATO meeting in Bucharest: "You don't understand, George, that Ukraine is not even a state. What is Ukraine? Part of its territories is Eastern Europe, but the greater part is a gift from us."

http://content.time.com/time/world/a...900838,00.html

[Jimbuna]

I'm of the opinion the aid convoy will be bringing humanitarian aid and is not an excuse to join or engage in military action.

There isn't much the west can do if I'm wrong though and all should be revealed in the next day or so.

[Oberon]

Originally Posted by Jimbuna

I'm of the opinion the aid convoy will be bringing humanitarian aid and is not an excuse to join or engage in military action.

There isn't much the west can do if I'm wrong though and all should be revealed in the next day or so.

That's if the Ukrainian government let's it through:

Security council spokesman Andriy Lysenko said aid should pass through a government-controlled border post and be accompanied by Red Cross officials.

I can understand this, tbh, if I were in Kiev I'd be concerned that the convoy was being used to smuggle weapons too.

[Wolferz]

If General Patton had been given his wish back in 1945 we probably wouldn't see any of this malarkey today.

[Dread Knot]

Originally Posted by Wolferz

If General Patton had been given his wish back in 1945 we probably wouldn't see any of this malarkey today.

No.

Quotes by Patton on Russian troops in 1945 must be compared with what he wrote about American troops in Tunisia after Kasserine, about British troops in Sicily when in Messina, about German troops and civilians when he got command of an Army in Normandy, about Bradley when he learned that he had been bypassed by this army group commander, about black troops in combat, and about Field Marshall Montgomery on all occasions.

Patton was a very good general for armored action, but a very poor diplomat, and maybe a not so efficient manager for global operations. He benefited from a very large supply of materials, and first class divisional officers. However in one case, the stop on the Moselle, with restricted gasoline and deficient ammunition supply, he did not solve the problem in a better manner then his neighbors.

Remember also his dreams and nightmares. Obviously he was in some ways not entirely normal. Reincarnation of Napoleon and other conquerors, remembering his presence in big battles of the past, are not everyone's thoughts.

Better to remember the opinion Eisenhower expressed on his flight to Moscow immediately after the war. In his memoirs he noted at how he didn't see an intact village or town the entire trip. What were we going to take from them that they hadn't already lost?