A military strategic question

CCIP · 08-11-14, 11:38 PM

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.

08-11-14, 11:38 PM	#10
CCIP Navy Seal Join Date: Apr 2005 Location: Waterloo, Canada Posts: 8,700 Downloads: 29 Uploads: 2	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. __________________ There are only forty people in the world and five of them are hamburgers. -Don Van Vliet (aka Captain Beefheart)