What would you like NATO to do?
Russian invasion of Ukraine | Fewer tweets, more discussion
- Thread starter Wednesday at Stoke
- Start date
Jeez, yeah, when you list them in that context...
It's not as if the last great war happened that easily. People are taking it a bit too lightly, it's easy to take decisions when you can't actually take them yourself. Also the reality is that we won't even know when the war already started, our first clue will be tomahawks flying on Russian positions and hundreds of fighterjets locking western Europe.
Lean forward more. Even if they don't want a NFZ, they can still give the Ukrainians more arms beyond manpads and guns. Give them jets and more sophisticated SAM launchers that can shoot down Russian planes (and by planes, I mean ones that fly at higher altitudes out of reach of manpads). If the Ukrainians don't know how to use some of the equipment, allow outsiders not employed by NATO to participate. Launch PsyOp campaigns inside Russia to destablize Putin among his public, create strategic diversions for Putin by moving troops into parts of eastern Europe, near Kaliningrad, and the Baltics. Be proactive and set the agenda, instead of being reactive and allowing Putin to do it.
Last edited:
If Russia attacked Estonia for example I honestly couldn't see macron scholz or Trudeau committing troops and going to fight
Biden... Honestly not sure if he would but I suspect domestic politics would factor at least as heavily in the decision as honouring the article 5 commitments
Boris ... I think he would (if America did) but mainly to live out some elaborate Churchillian cos play rather than any sense of honour.
Looking at that lot possibly putin read the room pretty well
That's not a good example. France already has troops committed in Estonia and is in charge of its air space.
Edit: At the moment, the US and France have definitely committed troops and have taken commandements for certain NATO territories. I don't know about other members but I guess that it's the same for at least the UK.
I hope at least for some living in the west, seeing this conflict gives them the ability to see past events from a different less biased lens. It's clear some in here are in denial and shout "whataboutism" when it makes them uncomfortable, but I'm sure some see the parallels from Russia:
"Liberating" Ukraine. Civilians are just dying because they hide behind human shields. The Ukraine "Neo-Nazis" (focus on 2% of the population). Ukraine fired rockets on civilians in the Donbas!
All of this is classic propaganda and war tactics by an oppressor to achieve its goals. If you think Russia is the only power doing this then your head is buried deep in the sand.
A couple of posts isn't a big deal. If it results in a total derailment, the convo will be moved next door.
I'd agree with those suggestions though I can understand if leaders are hesitant to implement them. Russia might raise the stakes even more if we do those things?
i don’t want the world to end for anything mate.
Im a bit confused. At what point has NATO threatened Russia?
You can't really claim NATO as a solely defensive alliance, as has repeatedly been stated, if you at the same time implore an offensive action on behalf of another non-NATO state. If lines so easily shift it isn't something you can use to support any argument which is problematic when you're trying to convince many in Russia NATO is no threat.
Positive news.
Oh I fully respect any endeavour not to have a world war but that lot are pretty much an awful bunch taken as a whole.
Cease fire as in reorganize while shooting at fleeing people?
Thing with Estonia (and rest of the Baltics) is that you have NATO bases filled with US, UK and EU soldiers and gear there on permanent basis. Less than 200 miles from the border with Russia. They wouldn't need to make a decision to bring the troops here, they are already here. They would have to remove the troops during an attack on Estonia to avoid direct conflict between NATO and Russia. Not sure if they'd do that either, NATO would probably break down in that case.
Compared to what?
Are we sure some of those things are not happening? I always presume we're not privvy to all the info and time usually proves that stance correct.
As others have said, I cannot imagine that the Ukrainian Government will still stand if they pause at the status quo.
Indeed.
It very well could be, and I hope it is.
What might be happening is accelerated training of Ukrainians to use Patriot or THAAD systems.
Russian troops seems to never get the news about the ceasefire so I am not hoping on this having any material effect.
While that is a fair question and I'm not sure who I'd rather have. I'm not a fan of any of those people to be honest. Not all awful people but not the most capable in my opinion. Any group where Johnson has a loud voice is an instant write off for me.
Moses I will say that with love but if you prefer the likes of Pétain or Churchill then we may have a problem.
That's not really true. Historically the largest nations always eventually bordered each other directly, because they had gobbled up areas against their will. And if there were areas that hadn't been gobbled up, they absolutely stepped there. The thing to take away from this is that imperialism is wrong, not that countries should avoid stepping in each others' spheres of influence.
Basically, being the people in someone's "sphere of influence" has never been anything but a burden to that people. It doesn't make you safer.
I don’t know what that means, but the goat *is* my zodiac sign. I enjoy Texas Holdem and my favorite thing is calling bluffs.
I have a problem with the stance of “Putin will use nukes if anyone dares to face his troops in the field (except Ukraine) so we can’t use any military tools to stop him, because he’ll end the world.” This is defeatist thinking that can be applied to any type of resistance.
i thought it was very interesting that there was no response by Putin to the initial shipments of arms to Ukraine. I can only guess he didn’t think they would make any difference. He was expecting a short campaign, it was only when jets were discussed that we got a threat. By this point it may have become clear that it would be a longer campaign, and jets are very impactful. But he could have used that threat right away and I expect it would have worked.
Why not threaten Ukraine with nukes if they resist? Well, Russia has a huge advantage in firepower and manpower already. But against NATO all he has to his advantage are tactical nukes. So he threatens because he cannot win, he must bluff, it’s the only way he can win
For me, Putin wants to win, mutually assured destruction isn’t something he wants. He could destroy the world any time he wants if that’s his goal, no one can stop him, if that’s his wish.
The West may not be ready to do anything more until they’ve moved some troops. I’m not a military expert so I’m not sure what the exact best move is. If this is a real statemate on the ground, then it may be best to do nothing.
I'm talking about recent history and in a context of peace. Not in a context of constant war and were these borderings were linked to armed conflicts.
Moses I will say that with love but if you prefer the likes of Pétain or Churchill then we may have a problem.
No I don't honestly, but I do appreciate that you brought love into it so freely.
(Us Irish don't share the world's view of Winnie)
I just wish there was a way to shut his program and/or to arrest him. Let the bitchers and moaners at Fox complain and bring the government to court later, but that cnut deserves to be silenced after such open treasonous behavior.
Using Putin's pre-invasion playbook and turn it against him has to be a top priority alongside arming Ukraine even more. The Kaliningrad Oblast is a small piece of land surrounded by Poland, Lithuania and the Baltic Sea. There are just a little less than one million people in there. The idea has been floated around before the Russian invasion began, and it still stands as of now. All that NATO has to do is to mass troops at the oblast's border and basically cut Kaliningrad off from the entire world while sending a warning (or a bluff, you name it): Putin, it's either the safety of your own people to whom you swore to protect, or it's your ego in Ukraine. Regardless, you can't have both.
Maj. Gen. Paul Eaton (retired) brought that point back to the surface just 2-3 days ago on CNN's Jim Sciutto's morning show. Doing so would take Putin's eyes off the ball as a primary purpose, but I would go further as to say that Kaliningrad should become a massive bargaining chip in this war.
I don't really understand what you mean.
I agree again, and I’m sure the military has many options below sending in troops we wouldn’t think of. Private contractors can be hired by Ukraine, off the top of my head.
Ceasefire and a deal, I fully expect this time be hearts and mind fk by Russia, hopefully not.
Russia has the territory with all the oil now, and a lot of the wheat production. He’s not advancing easily, I expect he’d be happy to stop with taking the territory he’s currently holding.
Which would be a disaster for Ukraine, surely.
The Russians are also using weapons provided by the West. Still, all the wrongs in the World don’t excuse the totally immoral attack on the Ukraine. Rarely in history has their been such an obvious wrong vs right, highlighted by the crackdown on the independent press & media in Russia itself, the oppression of freedom of speech and the lies being spouted by the Russian propaganda machine. If the Russians themselves thought the were in the right then they wouldn’t need to take such desperate actions in their own country would they now.
100%. There are former military pilots and SAM operators who are not employed by any government in the present who can help with some of the more modern equipment. The broader problem here is that Biden and his cohorts are being a bit too reactive, and in so doing, allowing Putin to make all the moves. This sort of leading from is less helpful to the Ukrainians.