Ukraine Invasion: Part 54

[MagicFox]

We're on 54. Slava Ukraini 🇺🇦
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

There needs to be a conversation with the public that is not patronising or alarmist but calm and frank. And opposition parties need to support the proposed spend too. It should transcend party politics.

I agree but I honestly think we’ve created a World where most people can’t comprehend what the risk might mean for them.

But we are all taught about the horrors of the world wars at school : it's part of our curriculum. And isn't that the case through Europe? I've always felt that this has been drummed into me. Remembrance Day. Even nurseries talk about it. I would have thought that the weathering of the "never again" that we've all been told to be grateful for would have struck at everyone. I don't get it!

Yes we do all get taught about the World Wars but as history, not as something that we risk happening again. I think that becomes increasingly problematic as it fades from living memory and is simply resigned to the history books.

They have increased though, most spend more than 2% now, the issue is years of underspending* so would need to spend even more now if they properly want to catch up.

*not all, some have always spent a decent amount

Im worried about the illusion (if it's that) that the US wouldn't stand up to Russian incursions alongside Europe OR that a withdrawal of troops eg on the eastern flank would symbolise to Russia that they could push more. It's the opposite of what deterrence is supposed to do. Sounds like we're going to have a tin curtain rather than iron one on the EF.

Can't remember what podcast it was on but somebody made the point about Thatcher letting deterrence slip re the Falklands and that's what prompted Argentina to have a go. Disaster all round.

Withdrawing troops from the eastern borders would be incredibly foolish. I hope to God that doesn't get agreed to.

But of course NATO troops can't be fully withdrawn because the countries own troops would still be there so it's an impossible ask

Very, very Trump then; impossible asks are a speciality of his.

Can't remember what podcast it was on but somebody made the point about Thatcher letting deterrence slip re the Falklands and that's what prompted Argentina to have a go. Disaster all round.

Oh don’t get me started on that episode…lots of heads that should have rolled in the wake of that conflict didn’t.

Anyhow (gets back on high horse at this point) one problem prior to 2022 was because conventional warfare costs lots there has been a tendency to think
and for the politicians to claim that adequate deterrence can be achieved by being smarter/faster/cleverer….boots on ground, guns, tanks, all a bit old fashioned ……..yet here we are.

https://www.newstatesman.com/politics/2022/02/watch-boris-johnson-claimed-the-days-of-big-tank-battles-in-europe-were-over

Russia not a real threat militarily speaking. At least not currently. In 5-10-years they won’t be either. Russian military hardware and training sucks. Ukraine has proved beyond a shadow of doubt, how poor Russia is. They had lots of men, still do, but only for the meat grinder. Any war against NATO will devastate Russia and Putin knows this. Whether Trump / US support is with NATO or not is irrelevant as the rest of NATO can more then defeat Russia if A5 is triggered.

Although I believe the plan has always been to let the Baltics fall and defend from Poland. Which aligns with Baltic war prep and tests.

It's a classic case of the Dunning Kruger effect.

The CEO of Rheinmetall sums it up.

CEO says Europe is "at kids' table" in Ukraine talks Rheinmetall CEO says Europe is "at kids' table" in Ukraine talks

Most Europeans don't appreciate the degree to which American politicians, military leadership, and the general public feel that Europe has reneged on its defense commitments to NATO and the US. And that they've done so in a cheeky, underhanded way, assuming that they could get one over on the gullible Yanks.

I am sorry this doesn't add to the discussion in any way but I have to vent somewhere. May Trump and all his minions rot in hell

I agree that they are not currently a serious threat. The threat they pose 5-10 years out depends entirely on the resources they wish to invest in their military.

The Russians are not stupid, and their tactical doctrine has evolved over the last three years. They can learn from their mistakes, and they and the Ukrainians have more combat experience than any other forces in the world. Underestimating their potential to pose a serious, long-term threat to Europe would be a big mistake.

The future balance of forces also depends on the level of investment in European NATO forces. Russia could easily gain the upper hand if it doesn't ramp up significantly.

Initial reflections of the talks in Saudi are beginning to emerge:

• a recognition that NATO expansion a “direct threat to Russia” (🙄🙄)
• an agreement to restore full cooperation between Russia and the US (if true not unwelcome I suppose)
• Rubio suggesting that economic sanctions against Russia will be lifted (in other words so they can rearm for another go)
• No meeting between Trump and Putin yet arranged

Whilst I agree that perhaps they aren’t an immediate direct military risk, the risk of “grey-zone” warfare is significant and an be equally devastating.

@MissConductUS I have enormous respect for you, huge, but I have to say that the US came over for a long time as being more than happy to take this lead; to fund the Mujahideen; to start the conflict in Vietnam on the basis of its own beliefs; many Irish-American funded terrorism in Ireland, until 9/11; to start the 2nd Iraq war without a UN mandate and in the face of a lot of opposition within NATO; to invade Afghanistan which wasn't actually UN-mandated, though ISAF was; to invade Libya, which was legal but was on the basis of poor research as the WMD weren't there. The US has stationed nuclear weopons in countries which is a significant deterrent to bad actors, but also makes those countries a bigger target, and the US retains the sole right to fire those weopons as far as I understand it. It's an uncomfortable situation.

Many US people may reasonably be aggrieved at the (unjustified) lack of NATO spending by many, but the situation is nuanced and it's not all one way. The US has wanted to see itself as the leader of the free world and at times ignored reasonable questioning, while other countries have not pulled their weight but as @Igotjelly said, there's been a huge complacency all over that War Will Not Come Again.

The US has been a force for (overall) good in the world, I will say.

Compared to Russia or China it's infinitely better.

(Which isn't to ignore the fact that China, like it or not, has vastly improved life for most of its citizens when you consider that in 1949 people lived on average 35-40 years and now i roughly 78 years).

Oh and shockingly (or not) Russia will accept no troops in Ukraine from NATO regardless of what flag they are there under. So who do they propose upholds any peace deal 🤨 surely if they don’t intend to breach a ceasefire it doesn’t matter what troops are stationed in a foreign sovereign nation….

I am getting absolutely sick of hearing what Russia does or doesn’t want. I couldn’t give a damn, to be quite frank.

I appreciate your expression of respect and am very pleased that I've earned it by my contributions here. I have the greatest respect for you and all of the regulars here, with a particular hat tip to the others who have served in the military of their countries.

I can't defend the misguided political decisions that resulted in military actions over the last 50 years of so that you mentioned. I think it's clear now that the US no longer sees itself as the policeman of the world. I think in the case of Afghanistan, it was a justifiable reaction to the 9/11 attacks, and we had a treaty obligation to assist South Vietnam when it was invaded (the Southeast Asia Collective Defense Treaty (SEATO) and the Mutual Defense Assistance in Indochina agreements.)

The limited number of nuclear weapons forward deployed in Europe are not under sole US control and are there with the agreement of the host nations.

North Atlantic Treaty Organization www.nato.int/factsheets Factsheet NATO’s Nuclear Sharing Arrangements

If NATO was to conduct a nuclear mission in a conflict, the B-61
weapons would be carried by certified Allied aircraft, known as
dual-capable aircraft (DCA), and supported by conventional forces from across the Alliance. However, a nuclear mission can only
be undertaken after explicit political approval is given by NATO’s Nuclear Planning Group (NPG) and authorisation is received
from the US President and UK Prime Minister. Within NATO, the NPG provides a forum for consultation, collective decision-
making, and political control over all aspects of NATO’s nuclear mission, including nuclear sharing. By design, therefore,
NATO’s nuclear sharing is the sharing of the Alliance’s nuclear deterrence mission and the related political responsibilities and
decision-making. It is not the sharing of nuclear weapons.

Surely they can't agree to those Russian demands not least because it's obvious that they'll come back again stronger and have another go and this time be fully victorious. If the Trump administration enables this it'll be too late for subsequent administrations to roll back the inevitable. It means strengthening Russia, sacrificing Ukraine and weakening Europe

And that's a massive shot in the foot to the US too

I don't think there is intent though 'to get one over' as it were, it is really a question of the difference in governance and culture i.e the expectation of an extensive social security system and wealth equality. In some European countries this is more pronounced than others so anecdotally I know this is an expectation with my Danish family more than my British. The message I have received from Americans I know, again anecdotally, is that they are a bit sick of funding this indirectly via NATO.

^However, a nuclear mission can only
be undertaken after explicit political approval is given by NATO’s Nuclear Planning Group (NPG) and authorisation is received
from the US President and UK Prime Minister.^

Good to know. Ive just looked the NPG up - what's the deal here, would the nuclear mission happen after the go-ahead has been given by the top level ministerial group within the NPG? Otherwise they'd be waiting til the sun went out if they want agreement from Albania, Belgium, Bulgaria, Canada, Croatia, the Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Iceland, Italy, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Montenegro, the Netherlands, North Macedonia, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden, Turkey, the United Kingdom and the United States. Especially Hungary.