NATO ex- prepare for a “worst-case” scenario: war with Russia.

Cypress said:
I think NATO is satisfied to watch Putin's army ripped from limb to limb by a small third world country.

Given how badly his military has failed and been decimated in Ukraine, I don't think Putin has the courage or confidence to strike militarily at NATO in any substantial and strategic way
Click to expand...
Putin was never going to go against NATO. Ujkraine is hardly a 3rd world army -
they have better weapons then Russia

None of which i care about - we are at war with Russia and nobody wants to say it -
inconvenient truth for the mongers -who just escalate it step by step
 
dukkha said:
Putin was never going to go against NATO. Ujkraine is hardly a 3rd world army -
they have better weapons then Russia

None of which i care about - we are at war with Russia and nobody wants to say it -
inconvenient truth for the mongers -who just escalate it step by step
Click to expand...

Agreed Putin doesn't have the courage or military capability to conquer Poland, Lithuania, Estonia.

Because those countries are in NATO, which is a massive deterent.

That is why Ukraine wanted to be in NATO. They almost certainly wouldn't have been invaded and their cities reduced to smouldering piles of ash if they had been.
 
Cypress said:
Agreed Putin doesn't have the courage or military capability to conquer Poland, Lithuania, Estonia.

Because those countries are in NATO, which is a massive deterent.

That is why Ukraine wanted to be in NATO. They almost certainly wouldn't have been invaded and their cities reduced to smouldering piles of ash if they had been.
Click to expand...
if you were familiar with the Budapest Memorandum which guaranteed territorial integrity -
and what I've often wrote and is documented of our meddling in the Euromaidan
- youd see Ukraine was always supposed to act as a buffer state for the benefit of the east and west.

Putin invaded, but by that time Ukraine had become a pro-EU and defacto NATO state
Having such a state on Russia's border was obviously intolerabe. Putins letters delivered by FM Lavrov
to Blinken said as much These were the "redline" warnings

Turning Ukraine into such a hostile situation was done by Obama's State dept
(To Obama's credit he wanted to negotiate with Putin)

It was continued by Trump -unable to escape "Russian collusion" and Congressional sanctions
By the time Biden gets in Ukraine is Putin's target because of the same warpig crew
that undermined the Russian Reset (Obama).
Putin knew Ukraine wold just continue to "beef up" as is said about NATO expansion/weaponization.
Ukraine is a much different state with much closer ties to Russia then Scandinavia
Finland in particular has always had its own forces dedicated to self defense

What do you think will happen to Russia once the war ends (if it doesn't just linger for years)
and what will Russia do after the war and Putin?
That's a key question because we are about to be in a simmering war
with Russia while trying to combat a militarizing China

There is a better path.
there always has been. peace thru negotiations instead of cold war 3.0 power games
by the Nuland/ Max Boot crowd

But you (not you personally) have to stop reflexive escalations - because it increases the chances of nuke warfare
Continuing down this path - without even Congressional hearings simply continues our current war
against Russia
 
Last edited:
Cypress said:
NATO would crush Russia if Putin tried to start a conventional war. Russian land forces and air power have been severely degraded by their foolish invasion of Ukraine, it is going to take them years to replace the tanks, aircraft, and trained crews they lost in the invasion, and real time battlefield Data show both the superiority of NATO weapons, and the incompetence of Russian logistical tactics.
Click to expand...

So, Russia goes nuclear, then what?
 
I expect Russia to shut down roads and railroads, leading to humanitarian catastrophe, with the support of China and India.

Buckle Up.
 
dukkha said:
fuck this insanity, Biden is sending another 33 billion ( we are up to hundreds of billions)
This is basically an Article 5 response to Ukraine - which has no strategic values for the USA
Click to expand...

This is nothing like an Article 5 response. If Putin invaded Poland(a NATO nation), it would trigger a real Article 5 response, and it would be war between the US and Russia. American soldiers would fight and die for the defense of Poland.

We are sending aid to Ukraine, but it is Ukrainians fighting and dying for their country. If they can give Putin enough of a bloody nose, we benefit by not having Putin invade other countries. And we double benefit, because China will see that invading Taiwan will be far from easy.

If the Ukrainians do not want to fight for their country, they will not. Defending their country is their choice. We will not, and more importantly can not, force them to fight to defend their country. It simply is not in our power to make them fight. But we can help them defend their country, if they so choose to.

It definitely benefits us in every way to help Ukraine fight to defend themselves. Or would you rather fight Putin with American forces in Poland(or Estonia, or China in Taiwan)?
 
T. A. Gardner said:
So, Russia goes nuclear, then what?
Click to expand...

Does cowering from Putin's threats make him less likely to go nuclear? Let's say Putin announces that we either surrender Europe, or he will go nuclear. Having captured Europe with no losses, wouldn't he then demand North America, or he will go nuclear.

I believe standing up to him early makes him less likely to go nuclear. Less likely is not the same as not possible. We live in a dangerous world.
 
Walt said:
Nothing new there. NATO has been preparing for the worst case scenario of war with Russia for 73 years now.
Click to expand...

Eight billion body bags will not be required. Niceties will no longer exist. Any NATO big-wig suggesting otherwise should be fired.
 
moon said:
Eight billion body bags will not be required. Niceties will no longer exist. Any NATO big-wig suggesting otherwise should be fired.
Click to expand...

I do not believe there will be a nuclear war, but it certainly is a real possibility. If there was a nuclear war, body bags would not be the solution for the massive numbers of dead.

There was a post that nuclear war is "inevitable" sooner or later, while I certainly think that is a reasonable statement, I am beginning to doubt it. Every weapon that is invented is used sooner or later. But 77 years have gone by since the last use of a nuclear weapon, so I am beginning to think we might avoid it. There has been massive moves towards people living in a more prosperous, liberal society. Before the alt right complains, living in a liberal society is not a political spectrum statement, but a statement on living in a free society.
 
Walt said:
If there was a nuclear war, body bags would not be the solution for the massive numbers of dead.
Click to expand...

If there was a nuclear war there would be nobody to fill them.

Anybody in ' authority ' thinking any differently should be sidelined/arrested. Of course, if it's the moron at the top.............................
 
moon said:
If there was a nuclear war there would be nobody to fill them.
Click to expand...

I read up quite a bit on nuclear wars back in the 1980's. Of course, I am not an expert, but I can make some very amateurish guesses.

I believe a full nuclear war (and a resulting social breakdown) would kill between 80% and 98% of Americans, leaving between 2% and 20% of Americans alive 2 years later. Population might drop further after that, but more likely would start rising from there. It would kill much less than 50% of the people in places like Africa and South America. Their poverty would actually be a blessing, in that they do not need things like gasoline and medicine to live their lifestyle.

There would be billions of people left on Earth. They would not put bodies into body bags, because what would be the point?

There would need to be some body bags in fall out and blast shelters for the people who die in them. Those body bags could be then thrown out of the shelters when things calmed down.
 
Everybody would die- jet stream radiation, nuclear winter- all gone. End of story. No survivors. Finish.

NATO is a fucking menace.
 
T. A. Gardner said:
So, Russia goes nuclear, then what?
Click to expand...

You made it sound like it was a terrible thing that we waged war on imperial Japan. War is always tragic, but our victory over Japan was one of the greatest blows for human freedom and liberal democracy in world history.

If you are afraid of Putin's bluster, you should move to the back of the bus and take a seat. It is good you and Trump no longer have a voice in government, because cowardice doesn't help in standing up for democracy and holding steadfast against a notorious war criminal.
 
dukkha said:
n response to comments made by the U.K. foreign secretary over the West needing to “double down” on its support for Ukraine, former NATO commander Sir Richard Shirreff told BBC Radio 4’s “Today” program it was “absolutely the right approach” and that “it’s got to be followed through with significant resources, and it’s got to be done right across the alliance, as a whole.”

Shirreff, formerly a NATO deputy strategic commander for Europe, then went on to caution that the Kremlin is likely to respond to this aggressively and that the West should be prepared for a worst-case scenario. “The worst case is war with Russia,” he said. “By gearing itself up for the worst case, it is most likely to deter [Russian President Vladimir] Putin because ultimately Putin respects strength.”
https://www.yahoo.com/news/russia-u...arns-west-must-gear-up-for-war-125133397.html
Click to expand...

If that happens, then I suspect you will go into hiding from your neighbors, Dookie. LOL
 
dukkha said:
if you were familiar with the Budapest Memorandum which guaranteed territorial integrity -
and what I've often wrote and is documented of our meddling in the Euromaidan
- youd see Ukraine was always supposed to act as a buffer state for the benefit of the east and west.

Putin invaded, but by that time Ukraine had become a pro-EU and defacto NATO state
Having such a state on Russia's border was obviously intolerabe. Putins letters delivered by FM Lavrov
to Blinken said as much These were the "redline" warnings

Turning Ukraine into such a hostile situation was done by Obama's State dept
(To Obama's credit he wanted to negotiate with Putin)

It was continued by Trump -unable to escape "Russian collusion" and Congressional sanctions
By the time Biden gets in Ukraine is Putin's target because of the same warpig crew
that undermined the Russian Reset (Obama).
Putin knew Ukraine wold just continue to "beef up" as is said about NATO expansion/weaponization.
Ukraine is a much different state with much closer ties to Russia then Scandinavia
Finland in particular has always had its own forces dedicated to self defense

What do you think will happen to Russia once the war ends (if it doesn't just linger for years)
and what will Russia do after the war and Putin?
That's a key question because we are about to be in a simmering war
with Russia while trying to combat a militarizing China

There is a better path.
there always has been. peace thru negotiations instead of cold war 3.0 power games
by the Nuland/ Max Boot crowd

But you (not you personally) have to stop reflexive escalations - because it increases the chances of nuke warfare
Continuing down this path - without even Congressional hearings simply continues our current war
against Russia
Click to expand...

Ukraine is an independent sovereign state that can decide for itself what it's future should hold.

The majority of Ukrainians want to align with western institutions.

^^ Now especially more than ever. The war instigated by notorious War Criminal Vlad Putin has guaranteed that the overwhelming majority of Ukrainians will hate Russia with a burning passion for generations to come.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top