How Hot is Ukraine Gonna Get?

[Aragorn2002]

8 minutes ago, TheVulture said:

I'm not the biggest fan of Ben Wallace (although he's one of the better of the Tory party), but on this I think the quote being thrown everywhere rather misrepresents what he said - it's rather more in line with what people on this thread have said that Ukraine can't take western support for granted in the sense that they need to be politically savvy about how public statements can sound to the western public. I.e. don't say stuff and present an attitude that is going to give leverage to the political factions that are rather more pro-Russian. Quoting a BBC article:

 

Ben Wallace's comments in full

More now on the latest comments from UK Defence Secretary Ben Wallace.

In his briefing with reporters, he said that Ukraine had to remember it was asking countries to give up their own stocks of weapons.

“There is a slight word of caution which is, whether we like it or not, people want to see gratitude,” he said. “My counsel to the Ukrainians is sometimes, look, you are persuading countries to give up their own stocks.

"And yes, the war is a noble war and yes, we see it as you doing a war not just for yourselves but also our freedoms. But sometimes you have got to persuade lawmakers on the Hill in America [US Congress].

"You have got to persuade doubting politicians in other countries that it is worth it, it’s worthwhile and they are getting something for it. That’s just the reality of it.”

He said there would sometimes be "grumbles" from US lawmakers, but he insisted that Ukraine would join Nato.

“The win here for Ukraine is the sort of cultural acceptance that Ukraine belongs in Nato.

"You have heard the [UK] prime minister say Ukraine belongs in Nato and the word 'belongs' implies it's fate, implies it’s going to happen.”

Indeed. Given the West's own military weakness, it's a miracle how much has been send already.

[Astrophel]

5 minutes ago, TheVulture said:

I'm not the biggest fan of Ben Wallace (although he's one of the better of the Tory party), but on this I think the quote being thrown everywhere rather misrepresents what he said - it's rather more in line with what people on this thread have said that Ukraine can't take western support for granted in the sense that they need to be politically savvy about how public statements can sound to the western public. I.e. don't say stuff and present an attitude that is going to give leverage to the political factions that are rather more pro-Russian. Quoting a BBC article:

 

Ben Wallace's comments in full

More now on the latest comments from UK Defence Secretary Ben Wallace.

In his briefing with reporters, he said that Ukraine had to remember it was asking countries to give up their own stocks of weapons.

“There is a slight word of caution which is, whether we like it or not, people want to see gratitude,” he said. “My counsel to the Ukrainians is sometimes, look, you are persuading countries to give up their own stocks.

"And yes, the war is a noble war and yes, we see it as you doing a war not just for yourselves but also our freedoms. But sometimes you have got to persuade lawmakers on the Hill in America [US Congress].

"You have got to persuade doubting politicians in other countries that it is worth it, it’s worthwhile and they are getting something for it. That’s just the reality of it.”

He said there would sometimes be "grumbles" from US lawmakers, but he insisted that Ukraine would join Nato.

“The win here for Ukraine is the sort of cultural acceptance that Ukraine belongs in Nato.

"You have heard the [UK] prime minister say Ukraine belongs in Nato and the word 'belongs' implies it's fate, implies it’s going to happen.”

Wallace reveals why he is not the calibre for a Nato chief and how he ranks in the second division of the already doubtful Tory government in UK.  We should be thankful that Ukraine is fighting our war and give them everything they need.  All the Ukrainians who have lost life and limb in this war deserve an apology from Wallace.  

What does he want to preserve his stocks for?  Is he planning to invade Argentina?

[Lethaface]

5 hours ago, Maciej Zwolinski said:

This is the view from Western Europe. 

For most people in the Baltics and Central Europe it is absolutely clear, that the Ukraine is fighting this war on our behalf. Every Russian soldier killed by the Ukrainians is someone our soldiers will not have to shoot at. I have a son of military age and another one who will be in a couple of years, so as callous as it sounds, I would gladly have the Ukrainians fight that fight for our money.

For what it is worth, I do not exactly understand why countries in Europe further to the West are not worried more. We are the next border after Ukraine, but the Netherlands are not exactly on the far side of the Moon either. 

I think we are touching upon several points here, maybe translation is a thing too (English being not our first language, although afaik we both have a rather good understanding of it).

A) Without Russia invading Ukraine in 2022,  there would be no full spectrum hot war between Ukraine and Russia. The destruction of Russia's armed forces in and of itself wasn't and shouldn't have been a goal without that event happening. 
In hindsight of course we can connect more dots and say 'we should have X', but that's only valid for the 'future' we are living today. If Russia hadn't invaded, there would be no war. There would also be no war to be fought on behalf of the West, because there would be no reason for it.

So, this war happened because Russia invaded Ukraine and Ukraine decided to fight back against it (unlike Crimea 2014). Not because of any other reason. The primary goal of the war is to kick Russia out of Ukraine, so Ukraine can follow their own path as they see fit. 
Ukraine isn't trying to kick out Russia from their country because they have romantic feelings about other countries. No, they are trying to do it on their own behalf: they don't want Russia in their country.

B ) Given that Russia has acted the way it did, it is now clear for all to see that the security situation in Europe isn't what we thought it was a decade ago. Russia has shown (repeatedly) it is not to be trusted and will even escalate to large scale full spectrum warfare against major countries, at the cost of many innocent lives, to get what it wants. This is turn has made obvious that Europe's largely neglected security against an 'Eastern' threat is sub par and needs to be addressed, especially given the new/current security outlook. Even if Russia won't be able to go on another adventure for the next 5-10 years whatever, there's no guarantees it won't try something again later down the line so we better prepare ourselves.

C) I personally doubt Russia would have invaded Poland and or the Baltics if they would have successfully annexed Ukraine after a short war. That would mean a war against NATO, which is a whole different ballgame (never mind ballpark ). They'd probably like those territories inside the greater Russian imperium, especially Putain, they'd probably do it if they knew they'd get away with it. But that's definitely not a certainty. The Polish army already was a sizable force, no pushover. 
If those countries believe NATO wouldn't come to their help, well than why are they even in NATO. 

D) A weakened Russia is helpful to our security. Yes it (most likely) is, especially now that the West has decided to choose the Ukrainian's side Russia has become a defacto enemy like during the less friendly phases of the Cold War. That doesn't mean Ukraine is fighting it on our behalf though. There is a shared 'interest', which is why it is wise for us to support Ukraine achieving victory. Therefor I'm in favor of a 'full send' support, I don't like half measures because in the end they are more costly and time consuming. But there's always geopolitics and various interests involved so things move at the pace they move. 

E) Worrying has never helped anyone. I don't know if people here don't worry, I don't like to worry though. But that doesn't mean we/I think we shouldn't be properly preparing so we can prevent poor performance in the future. Maybe we have more trust in NATO given our history. It probably also helps we're not directly on the border. 

Hence why I think it is a fallacy to state that Ukraine is fighting the war on our behalf. They are fighting for their country, they are fighting a just war of self defense. Their victory is absolutely in our interest (for various reasons) and so we should support them win it. 

Now if Russia had already defacto declared war on NATO and it was a given they would attack NATO after they are done with Ukraine; then one could say Ukraine would be fighting a war on our behalf. But in that case we'd probably be fighting it alongside them. 

[cesmonkey]

I'm no expert on WhatsApp. Besides painfully copying the text of your WhatsApp message and pasting it into the Google Translate app on your PC, you could try running the browser version of WhatsApp in Chrome and then try the same method I suggested for translating Telegram in the browser.

Use this URL to go to the web browser version of WhatsApp:
https://web.whatsapp.com/

If you go to this URL:
https://translate.whatsapp.com/
it looks like Facebook is working on built-in translate functionality for WhatsApp, but it appears you have to be invited to participate:

Edited July 12, 2023 by cesmonkey

[Astrophel]

4 minutes ago, Lethaface said:

I think we are touching upon several points here, maybe translation is a thing too (English being not our first language, although afaik we both have a rather good understanding of it).

A) Without Russia invading Ukraine in 2022,  there would be no full spectrum hot war between Ukraine and Russia. The destruction of Russia's armed forces in and of itself wasn't and shouldn't have been a goal without that event happening. 
In hindsight of course we can connect more dots and say 'we should have X', but that's only valid for the 'future' we are living today. If Russia hadn't invaded, there would be no war. There would also be no war to be fought on behalf of the West, because there would be no reason for it.

So, this war happened because Russia invaded Ukraine and Ukraine decided to fight back against it (unlike Crimea 2014). Not because of any other reason. The primary goal of the war is to kick Russia out of Ukraine, so Ukraine can follow their own path as they see fit. 
Ukraine isn't trying to kick out Russia from their country because they have romantic feelings about other countries. No, they are trying to do it on their own behalf: they don't want Russia in their country.

B ) Given that Russia has acted the way it did, it is now clear for all to see that the security situation in Europe isn't what we thought it was a decade ago. Russia has shown (repeatedly) it is not to be trusted and will even escalate to large scale full spectrum warfare against major countries, at the cost of many innocent lives, to get what it wants. This is turn has made obvious that Europe's largely neglected security against an 'Eastern' threat is sub par and needs to be addressed, especially given the new/current security outlook. Even if Russia won't be able to go on another adventure for the next 5-10 years whatever, there's no guarantees it won't try something again later down the line so we better prepare ourselves.

C) I personally doubt Russia would have invaded Poland and or the Baltics if they would have successfully annexed Ukraine after a short war. That would mean a war against NATO, which is a whole different ballgame (never mind ballpark ). They'd probably like those territories inside the greater Russian imperium, especially Putain, they'd probably do it if they knew they'd get away with it. But that's definitely not a certainty. The Polish army already was a sizable force, no pushover. 
If those countries believe NATO wouldn't come to their help, well than why are they even in NATO. 

D) A weakened Russia is helpful to our security. Yes it (most likely) is, especially now that the West has decided to choose the Ukrainian's side Russia has become a defacto enemy like during the less friendly phases of the Cold War. That doesn't mean Ukraine is fighting it on our behalf though. There is a shared 'interest', which is why it is wise for us to support Ukraine achieving victory. Therefor I'm in favor of a 'full send' support, I don't like half measures because in the end they are more costly and time consuming. But there's always geopolitics and various interests involved so things move at the pace they move. 

E) Worrying has never helped anyone. I don't know if people here don't worry, I don't like to worry though. But that doesn't mean we/I think we shouldn't be properly preparing so we can prevent poor performance in the future. Maybe we have more trust in NATO given our history. It probably also helps we're not directly on the border. 

Hence why I think it is a fallacy to state that Ukraine is fighting the war on our behalf. They are fighting for their country, they are fighting a just war of self defense. Their victory is absolutely in our interest (for various reasons) and so we should support them win it. 

Now if Russia had already defacto declared war on NATO and it was a given they would attack NATO after they are done with Ukraine; then one could say Ukraine would be fighting a war on our behalf. But in that case we'd probably be fighting it alongside them. 

A and B are true imo.  However, Putin would have gone further had he could.  The rhetoric stated his intent and they left the railway network intact.

As to whether Ukraine is fighting on our behalf I would introduce another thought.  Can humankind confidently live on a planet where nuclear armed bullies threaten armageddon if they don't get to confiscate and exterminate what they don't like?  Ukraine did not ask to be the frontline in WW3 but that is what is at stake - a war of principles.

[Lethaface]

8 minutes ago, Astrophel said:

A and B are true imo.  However, Putin would have gone further had he could.  The rhetoric stated his intent and they left the railway network intact.

As to whether Ukraine is fighting on our behalf I would introduce another thought.  Can humankind confidently live on a planet where nuclear armed bullies threaten armageddon if they don't get to confiscate and exterminate what they don't like?  Ukraine did not ask to be the frontline in WW3 but that is what is at stake - a war of principles.

That would mean anyone on the planet fighting against an oppressor is fighting a war on our behalf. From a philosophy pov I could see some merit in that idea, but in practical terms it becomes rather vague or result in a sort of perpetuous world war.

[Lethaface]

6 hours ago, Maciej Zwolinski said:

Every Russian soldier killed by the Ukrainians is someone our soldiers will not have to shoot at. I have a son of military age and another one who will be in a couple of years, so as callous as it sounds, I would gladly have the Ukrainians fight that fight for our money.

I don't see it as a guarantee that there will be a war between NATO and Russia on the next couple of years. I don't have children (yet? who knows lol), but I feel that if my country would get engaged in a war I won't be happy to pay others to fight it for us/me (duty calls). Although I can perfectly and fully understand not wishing to see your son go to the front. 

Edited July 12, 2023 by Lethaface

[Lethaface]

6 hours ago, Huba said:

Polish military twittershpere consensus is more or less that it was to be expected. PL military industry is stretched to maximum already, and after bad experiences with Leo2PL is not willing to go an extra mile to make this service center happen without it being reasonably profitable. Like usually with this type of situations, there's not nearly enough public info to really get to the bottom of who is at fault here, and to what degree.

Maybe nobody is at fault and it's 'just' converged interests. If I were a German taxpayer it wouldn't make me happy if Polish (or whatever other country) industry makes good profit off my taxmoney intended for direct support to Ukraine. 

If I were a Polish for profit business I can understand that if I have to choose between little profit vs large profit I would choose large.

[The_Capt]

3 hours ago, sburke said:

I think that is only part of the calculus.  China invading Vietnam didn't generate this kind of response.

other factors

1.  It is Europe.  Too close to home for NATO

2. It's impact strategically is much more important to the US and NATO than the consequences of a war in SE Asia.

3.  The Ukrainian victory at Maidan and continuing to hold out against Russian aggression was a cause the west could support.

4.  The long term goal of fostering democracy in Ukraine did not have a counter part in Vietnam.

 

If this had been Russia invading Belarus I don't think there would have been the same western response.  The Ukrainians themselves set the conditions that made this a viable option for the west.

Well that and the Chinese invasion of Vietnam was in 1979...I mean seriously who in the US was going to support Vietnam against China back in 1979?  This entire war was viewed through the Cold War lens (a very different world order) and was basically "commies killing commies...fine."

Ukraine is a European nation bordering on a NATO nations.  I strongly suspect if Russia invaded Uzbekistan we likely would not have raised more than the usual fuss and stern looks.  However Ukraine is in our sphere and as such was a direct affront to the "system" - tell me Putin was not thinking exactly this when the bright idea fairy landed.

If Ukraine had folded up, I strongly suspect we would be supporting one helluva insurgency right now a la Afghanistan 1980s.  Same reasons, longer road.  There is no such thing as a "humane war" or war for "humane reasons', we learned that one the hard way in the 90s during our Savage Wars of Peace days.  Political, strategic or cultural interests always get in the way.

[Letter from Prague]

3 hours ago, Aragorn2002 said:

The Russians are causing the West FAR more damage and trouble than most people realize. They do everything in their power to undermine our institutions, ideals and politicians. It has always been that way, also after the Cold war. They are our most dangerous enemy. And yeah, able and willing to blackmail us with their nuclear arsenal. 

As long as Russia exists, nobody can exhale with ease. That's what's at stake here, once and for all weaken them beyond recognition, so they can't even threaten their own people anymore.

Yeah. Brexit and Trump presidency (and the following stuffing of US Supreme Court with political candidates) were both Russia's misinformation handiwork and caused untold damage to the impacted nations and rest of the West.

Russia is lucky to have their nuclear weapons, otherwise the Kremlin wouldn't be standing right now, given how little the US invaded places in the past.

ETA: also if we're looking at how Russia always invaded places to defend itself, I'd like to add how Russia was savagely attacked by Czechoslovakia in 1968 by horrible weapon of liberalising the regime a little bit.

Edited July 12, 2023 by Letter from Prague

[Battlefront.com]

26 minutes ago, Lethaface said:

Hence why I think it is a fallacy to state that Ukraine is fighting the war on our behalf. They are fighting for their country, they are fighting a just war of self defense. Their victory is absolutely in our interest (for various reasons) and so we should support them win it. 

Largely agree with what you wrote, but not exactly with your conclusion.  See my previous post about long standing Russian aggression.

Ukraine might not be thinking it is fighting this war on our behalf, yet it very much is anyway.  These are not incompatible concepts.  Neither is it incompatible for the West to "use" Ukraine as a tool for its own benefit, but at the same time deeply care about Ukraine's future and the lives of its people.  Those are also not incompatible and are, in fact, why the West's usual anti-war left is nearly universally in favor of arming Ukraine.

This really SHOULD have been NATO's fight (in some form) before it got to Feb 23, 2023.  Russia was clearly, and repeatedly, showing it was an active, ongoing threat to the countries within NATO.  The problem was Russia played the game of "just enough, but not too much" that NATO/West really couldn't figure out how to respond.  Lots and lots of things could have been done and were not, allow Russia's behavior to continue and even get worse.

In other words, NATO and its allies apparently needed Putin to clearly step over the line before it could get it's disorganized house in order to strike back against Russian aggression and threats to democracy.  No other options seemed to be on the table for improving the situation, therefore this war is in no small way being fought on behalf of NATO/West even if Ukraine has selfish reasons for fighting it.

Steve

[The_Capt]

3 hours ago, Lethaface said:

Hence why I think it is a fallacy to state that Ukraine is fighting the war on our behalf. They are fighting for their country, they are fighting a just war of self defense. Their victory is absolutely in our interest (for various reasons) and so we should support them win it.

It can (and is both), most proxy wars are, at least the defensive ones.  Ukraine definitely represents Western interests in this war, which also overlap with their own self defence.  See all the wars where those overlaps did not happen and exactly what we did about it.  If Russia suddenly did not matter to us or Ukraine kicking their butts on our behalf did not matter, watch how fast support would dry up on what would be viewed as a "border skirmish in Eastern Europe". 

Edited July 12, 2023 by The_Capt

[danfrodo]

58 minutes ago, Aragorn2002 said:

Hell, yes. Zelensky really went too far this time. "Weak and absurd" what was he thinking?

Hey Aragorn!  Hopefully he didn't do too much damage.  He's had outbursts like this before.

The pressure is probably a big factor in his words.  Zelensky has watched as NATO 'escalatory' aid increases have kept UKR from damaging RU as much as would have been possible w more aid, earlier.  Imagine the stress he is under! 

Not that NATO et al haven't been generous, but they have sometimes pissed around too long on things that ended up being delivered anyway.  3-4 months left in the campaign season -- why are we just be giving ATACAMS now??  Why not to help start the offensive season??  It's is sooooo much in interest of the world to have Putin lose so we need stop slow walking important weapons systems.

[Battlefront.com]

1 minute ago, Letter from Prague said:

Yeah. Brexit and Trump presidency (and the following stuffing of US Supreme Court with political candidates) were both Russia's misinformation handiwork and caused untold damage to the impacted nations and rest of the West.

Let's not overstate Russia's capabilities.  That's the same mistake conventional warfare experts made prior to this war starting.

Most experts on the subject of Russian influence (propaganda, money, paid shills, non-paid shills, etc.) agree that absolutely, and without any question, Russia has the will and tools to "amplify" existing problems within targeted societies (not all Western for sure!), it dos not have the power to "create" them. 

There is no way to know how much influence Russia has had over any one specific campaign of theirs, but "non zero impact" is likely true.  What is not necessarily true is if that was enough to tip the delicate balance within that society.  It is unknowable, for example, if there would have been Brexit without Russian (and others, don't forget) meddling with the process.

I agree with those analysts that believe that there are large domestic reasons for things like Brexit, Trump, Le Pen, Orban, etc. and it would be a good idea to tackle those and not just nefarious outsiders like Russia.

Steve

[Lethaface]

6 hours ago, chuckdyke said:

Without assistance they would lose. We are either with them all the way or not at all. Quick enough to invade Iraq, remember the reason? Weapons of mass destruction. Kuwait was not a member of NATO either but to have boots on the ground was reasonable because of weapons of mass destruction. Now Russian has weapons of mass destruction and threatening to use them. Frankly speaking I am absolutely disgusted with all the Two Bob Each Way attitude. Look up what Two Bob Each Way means. It is the West European attitude. 

 

Leaving in the middle what I think about the two bob each way attitude, I don't agree applying it ONLY to West European attitude. Besides, the first Desert Storm was sort of UN sanctioned probably 'justified' intervention. The second war, OIF, was probably a petpeeve of certain USA leadership elements and based on falsified events and with a horrible endgame. But that's another topic

Another twist: if Russia didn't have a bunch of Nukes laying around, there would have probably be a 'no-fly zone' in effect since Feb 2022. 
I don't get people happily advocating pushing into WW3. NATO troops inside Crimea have a much higher chance of attracting nuclear payloads compared to Ukrainian troops. I get war (or rather the consequences) is emotional, I also have them. While it is wise to listen to emotions, it is not wise to directly act based on emotions. 
But perhaps that's just my Dutch blood, with a sprinkle of east-Prussian to be fully transparent 

Edited July 12, 2023 by Lethaface

[CAZmaj]

48 minutes ago, cesmonkey said:

I'm no expert on WhatsApp. Besides painfully copying the text of your WhatsApp message and pasting it into the Google Translate app on your PC, you could try running the browser version of WhatsApp in Chrome and then try the same method I suggested for translating Telegram in the browser.

Use this URL to go to the web browser version of WhatsApp:
https://web.whatsapp.com/

If you go to this URL:
https://translate.whatsapp.com/
it looks like Facebook is working on built-in translate functionality for WhatsApp, but it appears you have to be invited to participate:

It worked. Thank you VERY much!

[Carolus]

52 minutes ago, Lethaface said:

That would mean anyone on the planet fighting against an oppressor is fighting a war on our behalf. From a philosophy pov I could see some merit in that idea, but in practical terms it becomes rather vague or result in a sort of perpetuous world war.

The problem is we might actually be in a perpetual world war, we just don't fully realise this yet. I admit, my feelings and thoughts are a bit hawkish on this matter. 

It is not a conventional war for sure. It might never end up as another one after Ukraine, or it might. But it is already going and and it is not a war the vast majority of the Western peoples and their governments are even acknowledging that they are involved in.

The West and our democratic systems have an enormous amount of self-made problems we need to solve and plenty of moral flaws. 

But the alternative that is currently trying to flip as many government around to globe to its side is one of completely nihilistic exploitation at best or one of ethno-fascist state ideology at worst. The question whether Putin, Xi, Kim Un, the Iranian regime or Assad and their apparatuses and followers will do completely unspeakable things to anyone in this forum and our families is not one of morals to them - it is merely one of whether it is useful to them and whether they have the  opportunity to do it and maybe to get away with it.

There has been an embarrassing but small social media campaign a while ago in Germany of people from the right-populist to neo-fascist spectrum adopting pfps with a Russian flag and a message like "I'm not at war with Russia" or "I am a friend of the Russian people", which was sparked after a comment of the German foreign affairs secretary describing Germany or the West to be "at war" with Russia (diplomatically wrong and it might have been just a side comment, but it might also hint at her actually having a deeper understanding of the situation at large).

I could only think at how many of these people would end up if Russia established a regime just like in the occupied zones in Ukraine in Germany. "This must be a mistake, I called NATO bad on twitter" - "You have a nice daughter, German. And now dig the f*ing hole."

It is a new cold world war between "the worst system of government except for all other systems" and "the difference between you and the Uyghurs is that the Uyghurs are handily in reach of the CCP, but Xi promised the next illegal Chinese police station will come to a port city near you shortly", with Russia and China pouring enormous amounts of resources into psyops, cyber, social networking and industrial espionage. Information warfare which makes their own populations and the populations of their enemies forget the extent of their own crimes and massacres. People openly clamour that the Tianamen Square massacre is a Western psyop and don't forget one million dead Russian babies in Donbass CNN is telling you nothing about.

Look how we in this forum needed to brainstorm for a bit to remind ourselves what Russia has actually done in the past. Blatant murders of journalists and dissidents, in our own countries, while grinning into our faces. China just put out bounties for the heads of dissidents from HongKong. The next polonium tea is green. 

All of it fields in which the West is currently not able and/or not willing to compete in, and/or largely unable to defend itself against. And every country in Asia, Africa, America and Europe that is flipped through corruption, military support and propping up dictators will make economic sanctions more toothless, and the global order more hollow, turning their societies isolationist to achieve Schmittian multipolarity, or blocking decisions in entities like NATO, EU or UN. 

It very much does look like a global underhanded war of systems to me.

There is nothing in history that says things always have to improve or that the Western Man is the rightful God-given owner of global power, and thank goodness we majorly don't believe in the latter anymore. But I always hoped whichever hegemony eventually replaces the West would be more or at least equally humane, not gleefully more cruel. And I don't think a hope like that is a bad thing to work towards.

 

Edited July 12, 2023 by Carolus

[Beleg85]

4 hours ago, kraze said:

Western Europe should exhale with ease then because historically Russia had trouble reaching any of it.

One would think that totalitarian empire keeping largest mechanized force on this planet in constant readiness for 45 years, with only one goal in mind- offensive (preferably over nuked battlefield), would be enough to convince some people Russians indeed were/are a threat to the West as well. This studio even made entire game about it.

Just to give addendum to previous discussion about validity of muscovite danger. Since perhaps many viewers of this forum not reading Russian are not familiar with state of collective current Russian psyche, as expressed in myriads of their TV channels, internet discussons on media platforms as well as in private conversations, it is worth to reitorate how things stand now:

1. Large swath of population seems to be convinced they already wage kinetic war with NATO, but limited in scope to Ukraine. Kinetic, not just proxy- NATO officers and special forces are everywhere in banderistan, according to them. This notion is far more widespread than just core nationalists; it is common among less literate strata of population, probably a minority but still large, maybe 20-40% overall (no hard and undisputable sociological data make assessment difficult). But surely many more than 50% are at least convinced this is purely defensive (= rightous or even holy) war ont heir behalf that West started, though. For quite many Russians hot "war with NATO", even if geographically limited*, wouldn't be totally new quality, but just formalization of current state of affairs. Many would probably even be relieved in that case- mental blocks nurished by propaganda of Great War for motherland, heroic soldiers, imagined social solidarity would finally fit in right place. It is minority of population, but growing.

*Yes- basically CMBS setting.

2. I don't even enumerate soft actions like spy attacks, use of nerve agents on foreign soil (let's count this as "Whoopsie..."), countless provocation by planes and ships, political meddling, etc. Many of them in other historical context, and with actors less patient than the Western states, could lead to war by themselves.

3. They made artificial flood on largest river in Europe, stationed tanks in the centre of Chernobyl zone and are possibly not far from considering blowing another nuclear power plant.

4. Western Europe in popular Russian imagination (especially older generations) starts on Elbe, not even Odra river. Just a reminder for our German friends. Reason? Beginning of this post. ^

5. Again, perhaps many people are unfamiliar with Russian media (or understandably unwilling to dive in this sewer)- potentiall use of WMD was long ago inernalized and is opnely being discussed daily. To the point they have special programms in public TV (with folks who claim to personally dine with the Tsar) dedicated only to this issue of "preventive" nuclear attacks, with real specialists discussing potentiall fallout, how many nukes would be needed to blow off Amsterdam, Hague ("Hehe, you know why..."  as Skabaieva once giggled joyously with her guests) or London. Highest Russian officials, including twice the president of this country, routinely throw their nuclear phantasies publically. Public, sory for words, intellectual mastrubation with Cossacs drinking their horses in Paris 200 years ago or Soviet Army soldiers "teaching German women proper behaviour" in 1945 are part of very normal, mainstream discourse now.

Now of course this is internal game and a pose to bargain something, one could say; they surely really don't mean it, right? Perhaps. But sole fact that nuclear devastation became a casual topic they are very proud upon, touched even during morning breakfast with kids or being shared by Russian teenagers with girlfriends in chats, should make us much more worried of Russia than we did for last 30 years. I am pretty sure many professional people dealing with MAD in Washington and other places are scratching their heads how to proprely assess what is real in this nev environment, and how to differentiate between real and token danger. Muscovia AD 2023 is much less predicatble even than late Soviet Union in this respect. Especially after we saw how its internal system of power is vulerable in last months.

So yeah- even if you live in charming Provence countryside, well-connected commercial megalopolis like Amsterdam/London/Berlin or some Greek island- it doesn't matter, Russian madness and never satisfacted urge to being proper Empire can reach you in various ways.  Don't fool yourself folks; there are many more ways to do this than just conventional military power.

 

Sorry for long post. As a bonus, clip of Kornets bouncing off of Leopards 2A6 :

 

Edited July 12, 2023 by Beleg85

[Lethaface]

5 hours ago, Maciej Zwolinski said:

There are several reasons, to quote some of the top of the head:

First, Russian performance against Ukraine is an outlier, caused by their attempting a coup Prigozhin style but finding their soldiers in a middle of the biggest conventional war after WW2 in columns of march. This practically killed their professional army in the first month of the war and had to create a new one on the fly. It was a result of hugely wrong assumptions, which are not going to be repeated in a war against a NATO member They would come properly mobilised and their peformance would be better. How much better, I do not know exactly.

Second, out of those 31 countries, the only one which matters is the US. I am not so sure about the ablility of the rest of the European NATO members to effectively help protect the Eastern flank (prior to the weapons shopping spree on which Poland embarked; but the final outcome of this is uncertain). Even if they are fully willing. So the defence of Europe hangs on the result of US electorate not electing a radical isolationist because of their internal political issues, on which we have no influence, like after WW I. It would be much more comfortable if Russia was decisively defeated and deprived of the means to try and make a comeback as a world threatening empire. 

Third, and this is probably the most likely risk, is that after a hypothetical Ukrainian defeat, Russia gets wind in its sails, returns to its plans to be a World-threatening empire and new Cold War starts with the current NATO east flank being the frontier states. Even if Russia is ultimately deterred from starting a new shooting war this would not a good place to be.

Imo you are overestimating Russia. They had the size of Italy's economy. Their economy is/was reliant on 57% raw material export, the rest largely being internal services. Yes they have a lot of resources, but not that much industrial / technological infrastructure. We (including East Europe) did indeed also f up ourselves on the security/defense spectrum, some more then others, but I believe the 'Russia can invade any minute' theory is a fallacy. I also do think that politically and strategically the non-USA assets of NATO are relevant. Perhaps not as relevant as they could be, so there is work to do.

[dan/california]

2 hours ago, Aragorn2002 said:

I agree. In the long term China is even more dangerous and it would be wrong to think of that threat as far from our bed and mainly aimed at Taiwan. Personally I feel NATO has to consider this very catefully, especially by building stronger navy and air forces. And reducing Chinese influence weherever we can.

https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/defense-aerospace-report/id1228868129?i=1000620764233

This is an excellent podcast about how countries and militaries seize the opportunities presented by technological change and strategic circumstances, or don't. He discusses some the trends revealed by the Ukraine war at some length. The person interviewed wrote the book below. He is unimpressed with the adaptions the U.S. is making to face China. 

Quote

 

https://www.amazon.com/Origins-Victory-Disruptive-Innovation-Determines-ebook/dp/B0BTDCMFV4/ref=sr_1_1_sspa?crid=28L86DY264I89&keywords=andrew+krepinevich&qid=1689184745&s=books&sprefix=andrew+krepinevich%2Cstripbooks%2C153&sr=1-1-spons&sp_csd=d2lkZ2V0TmFtZT1zcF9hdGY&psc=1

How the character of war is changing and how militaries can successfully adapt to meet the challenge
 
This book by military strategist Andrew F. Krepinevich, Jr., is the definitive take on the race for military dominance in the twenty-first century. It shows how militaries that successfully pursue disruptive innovation can gain a major advantage over their rivals, while those that fail to do so risk exposing their countries to great danger.
 
The Precision Warfare Revolution introduced by the U.S. military in the First Gulf War found the United States enjoying a near monopoly in this form of warfare for several decades. But now other powers have these capabilities. The U.S. military also confronts an emerging military revolution driven by advances across a wide range of technologies—from artificial intelligence and synthetic biology to quantum computing and additive manufacturing.
 
To stay competitive, the U.S. military must pursue disruptive innovation in a race with other militaries to exploit war’s changing character. Clues exist as to the winner’s identity. They are revealed by militaries that went beyond the bounds of mere innovation to overturn the existing forms of warfare, changing the course of history and the fate of nations. Through exploring their experiences, Krepinevich shows how the U.S. military can win the race to identify and exploit the “next big thing” in warfare.

 

 

Edited July 12, 2023 by dan/california

[dan/california]

 

[Lethaface]

4 hours ago, kraze said:

Western Europe should exhale with ease then because historically Russia had trouble reaching any of it.

Which is historically correct. But history != future, but then we now have NATO exactly for this reason. 
Also to be fair, it's not like other (European) countries have been fairies historically. For my country we don't have to go back very far, even for officially known/recognized 'mishaps'. We have our 'politionele acties' in Indonesia directly after WW2, for example. So personally I don't think history is that relevant today, I mean it is interesting but one doesn't need history to declare the facts on the ground today. As a matter of fact, extrapolating history is often a fallacy used for predicting the future. 

[dan/california]

Dmitri is on fire today, as is The Pickle.

[womble]

1 hour ago, RandomCommenter said:

He is the one Tory I have time for.

Word. It'd be nice if Starmer would keep him as Defence, when the Tories cave at the next election (to leave Labour or a Coalition holding the nasty, badly-cared-for crack baby that the economy will be by then) but that simply isn't going to happen.  

Stupid party politics.

 

[dan/california]

Also interesting.