Ukraine Invasion: Part 48

[MagicFox]

That last one went quickly! Welcome to thread 48. Thanks as usual to all for the information, guidance and solidarity.

**
Agreed thread guidance:

A. The agreed purpose of the thread is for the sharing of information and commentary on current events

B. If you post a link please tell us where it leads/give a precis of the content

C. Discussion and debate is welcome, but please keep it respectful

Yes but it might in a few years if Europe doesn't sort out its gaps and Russia rearms and remobilises to the level that it is. I think perhaps this is the nub of it

I think he's crazy like a fox - but he's gone down a road of deep mental unhealthiness that was beginning to be evident when Blair was PM and became worse during lockdown. Crazy like Trump, no. But crazy like a tyrant, lost in his own echo chamber because no one really dare say No to him - that, yes.

He's very cunning and is mainly attacking the West by considerable hybrid warfare and frankly succeeding in the US, who are the mainstay of NATO atm. I'm very worried about what happens if Trump gets in again. If that happens, I think war is more likely ( but certainly not assured ).

I honestly don't think we understand the depths of his passionate ferocious commitment to his idea of expanding Russia, or his indifference to the lives and quality of lives of his own people. Contradictory, but Russia seems to be an idea in his head and have little to do with actual Russians.

Oh totally agree - not war now. But unless we get strong, war might well happen in a few years - that's what Stoltenberg etc have said. The level of militarization in Russia seems so considerable. If Putin works in China more, (specially in the area of choking Western access to rare earths?) and undermining political insituations - well, I hope we in the West are wise.

I do think the references to 2026/27 are interesting considering the CCP’s ambition of reunification by 2027….

Do you mean a double pronged attack? Russia in Europe and China in Taiwan?

I have no idea, it just seems quite coincidental the dates aligning.

But even then...why attack a nato state as oppose to a non-nato state?

If putin attacks a nato member it pulls everybody in. If the US is tied up in Asia and doesn't get involved it's all on European NATO. So, yes, perhaps this would fail and we'd end up in a horrible bloody European war, the consequences of which surely even Russia doesn't want to suffer. But if they attack a non nato member they expand their empire with little resistance.

I think the materials needed to fight in the indo pacific are different too so there would still be capacity for US support. It's not in the US interests to let russia control Europe

For chat around all of this I'd recommend the latest episode of One Decision - "What to expect as Putin cements his grip as Russia's new Czar" it features:

• Sir Richard Dearlove - former MI6 chief
• Sir Laurie Bristow - former US Ambassador to Russia and Deputy Chief of Mission
• Dr Angela Stent - former US National Security advisor on Russia and Eurasia

Yes it's good I listened this morning. Also Elbridge Colby less obnoxious and better challenged on the Good fellows podcast

Something to consider is that he keeps telling Russians that NATO are already in Ukraine and that they are already fighting them as a way to save face. It's inconceivable to Putin that Ukraine is defending itself.

If he wanted to push this, the natural thing would be to pick a perceived easy target, invade it, hope NATO stands by for an easy win, and then announce it to Russians as a huge win against the mighty NATO.

This is just an opinion though.

I thought the point from Laurie Bristow that basically he thinks it would take an extraordinary sequence of blunders and miscalculations for Russia and NATO to end up in direct conflict was interesting and definitely matches what my thoughts are.

Yes exactly

Also worth listening to The Bunker episode "Is Britain Prepared for War" with guest speaker Edward Arnold who is a European Security Research Fellow at RUSI. He talks about what war between NATO and Russia might look like, the impact on the UK (potentially) and the role of the Arctic as a potential trigger.

I found that one quite frightening.

A few thoughts.

American troops are already in place in Europe, along with fairly substantial prepositioned war stocks. Ammunition and other logistical stores in the Middle East could be moved to Europe in fairly short order.

Any potential conflict in the Pacific theater would involve primarily naval forces, the USAF and the Marine Corps, which is part of the Navy. The USMC has been pivoting to a Pacific-centric strategy for quite a while.

If more US troops were required to fight in Europe, the army would first deploy troops from American bases, then reserve and national guard units. They can be brought in by air and joined up with troops and equipment already there. This has been practiced for decades.

https://www.ausa.org/articles/we-were-there-reforger-exercises-designed-counter-soviet-threat

REFORGER (return of forces to Germany) has been replaced by STEADFAST DEFENDER, which broadens the scope geographically.

https://www.act.nato.int/article/steadfast-defender-2024-signals-alliance-unity-and-preparedness/

So it would not be ideal to fight in Europe and the Pacific simultaneously, but it's certainly not impossible.

Thanks @MissConductUS

One (other) danger of Trump getting in is that perhaps it might tempt Putin to test NATO because of his stupid comments and the impact they've had.

But even then...why attack a nato state as oppose to a non-nato state?

Hm, if I was Putin, it would make more sense to bring troops into Armenia, since Armenia is starting to break away from the CSTO. Then attack Georgia (once Ukraine is subjugated, if it is subjugated). If Ukraine is defeated, Moldova won't take much.

That would take some time, and during that time keep working on destroying the EU and NATO from within. Work on Hungary to ensure that if conflict comes, Hungary will sabotage from within - I'm sure that any NATO secrets that Hungary possesses are already in Russian hands.

Try to ensure civil unrest in EU countries; carry on weakening the US from within via social media and, frankly, the Republicans ( :( ) although they might surprise him - I think they have more teeth than he thinks.

Keep China heavily on side, help it also attack the US from within; aim to create distractions in the Pacific.

Work with China to get more unrestricted access to chips etc.

All this gives time to keep building up the Russian forces (and force experienced Ukrainians to fight for them) and vitally to train new recruits. The ones who have survived war so far are battled hardened and effective - we hear a lot about the terrible messups but quietly some pro-Ukraine analysts are also saying that Russian tactics are evolving and improving. Officers who are no longer at the front can train new troops. Won't be perfect, but Russia does seem to rely on brute force as well as training, so it could be enough.

At that point, let the tanks roll into the weakest of the Baltic countries - Lithuania, Latvia or Estonia, NATO or no NATO.

Of course all this depends on them taking over Ukraine.

BUT One thing that will probably send a strong message to Putin to not go too far with NATO is the new NATO base in Romania, which was very much a Soviet state. That could well be seen (and was?) a message to the world that NATO is here and committed to the defense of Europe.

It's all so fucking hideous, who knows?

That Bunker episode Jelly recommends does discuss where the UK might fit in. I do think civilians could contribute to running things at home and freeing up the army in that sense. Not so keen on the idea of non-professionals contributing to a fighting mass outside of the UK that Arnold alluded to initially. Emphasis is on nations contributing through speciality which in our case looks like special ops, reconnaissance, maritime. Have I summarised that right @Igotjelly

I think it's likely the original plan back in 2022 was that after the shock-and-awe overrunning of all Ukraine within a few weeks, Russian troops would then have moved into one of the Baltic states, calculating (prrobably correctly) that the key NATO players in western Europe and the US wouldn't actually be prepared to risk WW3 against a nuclear-armed madman over a few tanks rolling into Estonia or somewhere. Western leaders would have either immediately united to throw Eastern Europe under the bus or been plunged into embarrassing protracted arguments about how to respond, the betrayal would have been irreparable and effectively caused the collapse of both NATO and the EU overnight, and in relative terms Russia would barely have had to lift a finger to do it. If Ukraine had simply rolled over, as some people were predicting at the time, it might even have been accomplished with fairly minimal bloodshed.

In 2026 or whenever it would be much more difficult, for two reasons: firstly, the 'Putin is literally insane and might randomly nuke all of Europe for no reason' rhetoric doesn't really wash anymore when they've been making the same threat once a week for years, and secondly we're no longer in the immediate aftermath of the pandemic, when everyone was still reeling from the shock of discovering that everything we'd assumed was stable and permanent in our society could actually just be gone in a matter of weeks. It's my opinion (just based on my own thoughts, not on any evidence) that the pandemic played a huge part in this situation, and without it we wouldn't be looking at this kind of war at all - Russia would, if anything, just have tried to quietly annex a bit more of eastern Ukraine and hoped the West would continue to turn a blind eye, instead of playing what in hindsight looks like a massive blunder by giving us no choice but to pay attention to a conflict we were trying out level best to ignore.

At this point it's pretty obvious that if Russia did invade a NATO country there would be some kind of large scale response, even if it somehow happened tonight with no warning. Their being capable of doing so makes sense, as a way of being able to escalate the war without resorting to nuclear weapons if they deem it necessary to do so, or in case we really can't get our shit together in the next few years and it starts looking like they could actually 'win' against NATO (whatever that looks like). But I don't think it's likely, and neither my pro- nor anti-Putin Russian acquaintances seem to think so either, for whatever their opinion is worth. Neither do US intelligence, according to a report they released within the last week (not sure if that was already posted on here? I don't normally read these threads). I just don't think anyone wants it enough, including Russia.

I don't think I've seen that report @AskNotForWhomTheBellCurves - if you've got a link that'd be great. Interesting to hear your thoughts and those of your friends. I'm often locked in a Twitter echo chamber and find this thread very grounding

I do sometimes worry you do all the heavy Twitter lifting and it must wreak havoc with your mental health!

I think it’s this report https://www.dni.gov/files/ODNI/documents/assessments/ATA-2024-Unclassified-Report.pdf

Haha it does a bit, but you always manage to pull me back so I'm v grateful!

Ah yes I did read this!

Just here to say: fabulous username, @AskNotForWhomTheBellCurves