Current Affairs Ukraine

[brigadier]

With a thumbs up and a cheer, Ukraine under the bus you go.

 

[Lapeno77]

Surely the most likely line of attack for the US rather wr than conventional firces would be a cyber attack similar to 2019.

U.S. Escalates Online Attacks on Russia’s Power Grid (Published 2019)

The Trump administration is using new authority to take more aggressive digital action in a warning to Moscow and in a demonstration of its abilities.

www.nytimes.com

Let one city spend 24hrs in the dark as a bit of a 'shot accross the bow'

 

[TheSouthernBlue]

A lot of fantasy-scenario's on here.
What happened last time: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2020_Russia–Saudi_Arabia_oil_price_war

I remember the two days well. I kept shorting Oil.

In the morning of the second day I loaded up £300 or so into my account, within 45 mins it was £13/14k.

Either way, I don’t personally class it as fantasy as I believe it would work to hurt the Russian economy deeply with demand increasing, what didn’t assist the collapse before was there was a reducing demand for oil as the pandemic grabbed hold.

 

[PhilM]

we have absolutely no evidence that the west would actually fight for 'any' NATO member - because its never happened in history, and we can see how they have scrambled around avoiding getting involved in the Ukraine for years for fear of conflict.

Mate, you may need to get your ears cleaned. Ukraine isn't part of NATO while other countries are part of NATO, so why do you keep making that comparison?

We have no evidence that they wouldn't, whereas there's evidence of Article 5; there's evidence of increased deployment of assets across Eastern Europe.

We have the evidence now disclosed where if the USSR had incurred on NATO territory, we'd have used tactical weapons to obliterate the red army.

If Russia did invade Poland or other states, we would defend and retaliate. The elephant in the room is that the Russians won't because of said obligation.

Ukraine is sadly different. If you ever visit Haren, you will know that the consensus is that Russia won't be allowed to encroach on NATO soil. Not then. Not now.

 

[Kev The Rat]

Mate, you may need to get your ears cleaned. Ukraine isn't part of NATO while other countries are part of NATO, so why do you keep making that comparison?

We have no evidence that they wouldn't, whereas there's evidence of Article 5; there's evidence of increased deployment of assets across Eastern Europe.

We have the evidence now disclosed where if the USSR had incurred on NATO territory, we'd have used tactical weapons to obliterate the red army.

If Russia did invade Poland or other states, we would defend and retaliate. The elephant in the room is that the Russians won't because of said obligation.

Ukraine is sadly different. If you ever visit Haren, you will know that the consensus is that Russia won't be allowed to encroach on NATO soil. Not then. Not now.

why am I making that comparison? Because Ukraine wants desperately to be in NATO, but NATO wont accept them, because they are scared of having to fight.

I think its a fairly good demonstration of NATO's bad faith.

 

[Bruce Wayne]

Mate, you may need to get your ears cleaned. Ukraine isn't part of NATO while other countries are part of NATO, so why do you keep making that comparison?

We have no evidence that they wouldn't, whereas there's evidence of Article 5; there's evidence of increased deployment of assets across Eastern Europe.

We have the evidence now disclosed where if the USSR had incurred on NATO territory, we'd have used tactical weapons to obliterate the red army.

If Russia did invade Poland or other states, we would defend and retaliate. The elephant in the room is that the Russians won't because of said obligation.

Ukraine is sadly different. If you ever visit Haren, you will know that the consensus is that Russia won't be allowed to encroach on NATO soil. Not then. Not now.

If you were in Estonia right now, would the 1,600 Nato troops make you feel confident should Russia decide it wanted to invade?

 

[tsubaki]

That's because it was America that was "under attack" though. Contrast that with Gingrich's remarks from a few years ago questioning whether America would go to war to protect [Estonia] a country that is basically the suburbs of St Petersburg. Since Suez, I can't imagine any European armed force doing anything if America isn't bothered.

I disagree - with how the Russians are acting, and especially how they are threatening, I think a US government that didn’t defend any NATO member would basically kiss its influence in Europe goodbye.

The inevitable outcome of them abandoning NATO would be that the EU would do it instead, which would probably lead to what is probably a nightmare scenario for the US (ie another democratic superpower as a rival).

 

[Bruce Wayne]

I disagree - with how the Russians are acting, and especially how they are threatening, I think a US government that didn’t defend any NATO member would basically kiss its influence in Europe goodbye.

The inevitable outcome of them abandoning NATO would be that the EU would do it instead, which would probably lead to what is probably a nightmare scenario for the US (ie another democratic superpower as a rival).

It's uncertain though, isn't it? I mean Republicans are traditionally the hawks, so if they're casting doubts.

 

[Martin Alvito]

Surely the most likely line of attack for the US rather wr than conventional firces would be a cyber attack similar to 2019.

U.S. Escalates Online Attacks on Russia’s Power Grid (Published 2019)

The Trump administration is using new authority to take more aggressive digital action in a warning to Moscow and in a demonstration of its abilities.

www.nytimes.com

Let one city spend 24hrs in the dark as a bit of a 'shot accross the bow'

This is a really bad idea, because it normalizes that sort of incursion as a legitimate front.

Putin is much better at it than we are. We are very behind on cybersecurity. Going on the offensive with cyberattacks repeats the mistake of the Arab Spring, which led to Putin throwing money at influencing voters on Facebook in order to get someone like Trump elected. If I'm being charitable, Trump is isolationist and anti-NATO. If I'm not, I argue that Putin has a lot of influence over Trump through owning his debt.

If you were in Estonia right now, would the 1,600 Nato troops make you feel confident should Russia decide it wanted to invade?

Again, pawn sacrifice. The NATO troops are literally there to die, in order to irrevocably commit those governments to war in the event that Putin invades. Notice who is there: Britain, France and the US. The Germans are in Lithuania. That's the core of the alliance. You'd end up looking at a front somewhere around Poland/Lithuania, with Putin having the option to advance into Romania/Hungary/Slovakia if he were able to pacify Ukraine.

 

[tsubaki]

It's uncertain though, isn't it? I mean Republicans are traditionally the hawks, so if they're casting doubts.

I think that’s more because of the midterms and who is chums with Putin (as in Trump, Bannon, Carlson and all the rest of that shower).

 

[Kev The Rat]

This is a really bad idea, because it normalizes that sort of incursion as a legitimate front.

Putin is much better at it than we are. We are very behind on cybersecurity. Going on the offensive with cyberattacks repeats the mistake of the Arab Spring, which led to Putin throwing money at influencing voters on Facebook in order to get someone like Trump elected. If I'm being charitable, Trump is isolationist and anti-NATO. If I'm not, I argue that Putin has a lot of influence over Trump through owning his debt.


Again, pawn sacrifice. The NATO troops are literally there to die, in order to irrevocably commit those governments to war in the event that Putin invades. Notice who is there: Britain, France and the US. The Germans are in Lithuania. That's the core of the alliance. You'd end up looking at a front somewhere around Poland/Lithuania, with Putin having the option to advance into Romania/Hungary/Slovakia if he were able to pacify Ukraine.

I actually think that is the angle he is going to work next, rather than Estonia, Lithuania.

The Balkans, which has some non-NATO countries he can navigate through easily. Plus a very friendly Orban resides there, who is bought off with cheap gas.

 

[Martin Alvito]

why am I making that comparison? Because Ukraine wants desperately to be in NATO, but NATO wont accept them, because they are scared of having to fight.

I think its a fairly good demonstration of NATO's bad faith.

The whole point of a defensive military alliance is to prevent fights, not to protect "friends". It's the equivalent of showing up to the bar with a whole NFL team, so that no one messes with you that night.

The nice spillover effect of such alliances is that the parties can direct their military expenditures more efficiently, and avoid purchasing redundant capabilities.

 

[LinekersLegs]

 

[Kev The Rat]

The whole point of a defensive military alliance is to prevent fights, not to protect "friends". It's the equivalent of showing up to the bar with a whole NFL team, so that no one messes with you that night.

The nice spillover effect of such alliances is that the parties can direct their military expenditures more efficiently, and avoid purchasing redundant capabilities.

Notice Putin didnt mention NATO once in his speech last night - why? because he doesnt even view them as a serious obstacle.

 

[Martin Alvito]

I actually think that is the angle he is going to work next, rather than Estonia, Lithuania. The Balkans, which has some non-NATO countries he can navigate through easily. Plus a very friendly Orban resides there, who is bought off with cheap gas.

The Baltic states are the bigger thorn in his side from a military standpoint, and are therefore the higher priority. I would imagine that he will continue his efforts with Orban, and try to work Romania and Slovakia politically if possible. Turning those countries into buffer states is probably "good enough", from his perspective.