To think that preparing for war with Russia is total madness?

[Newbutoldfather]

General Patrick Sanders, our top general, warns troops ‘must be prepared to fight Russia in the battlefield’.

There is increasing acceptance of the idea that we could somehow fight a limited war with Russia. I just don’t believe this.

Leaving aside that our military consists of a toy battleship and an old man with a wooden gun (only slight hyperbole), have people wished nukes away?

I am very curious as to what this war would look like. Are they envisaging that there would be a limited battlefield and a list of allowed weapons and that the loser would shake hands and walk away?

I think we are perilously close to the total annihilation of Homo sapiens (which would happen in a nuclear war). We, meaning the west and, especially, the increasingly jingoistic UK, need to dial back the rhetoric and look for a way to find peace, even if we have to compromise on our principles.

Interested in what people think and whether people do think that AIBU.

Indeed. And Mexico is a long way from China. But then Afghanistan and Iraq are a long way from the North Atlantic. It really does seem as if NATO has been rolling around the globe looking for a scrap since the Soviet Union collapsed in 1991.

Yet I am puzzled by Putins actions. He had achieved his realistic aims by 2014. Without a major war , without sanctions. Now he is no better off and Sweden x Finland are in NATO. Perhaps he is ill . Or the Russian economy is in a much worse condition than we know and he needs a massive distraction?

The Mexico thing seems off. I mean if the US posed a credible threat as Putin did to Ukraine maybe they’d join up to an international pact so they were not so exposed

I think anyone in Putin’s path has a reasonable desire to want to join NATO

I don't, there has always been wars and talk of wars, now is no different, Gaza Ukraine are both terrible but pale into insignificance compared to Korean War, Vietnam and Cambodia.
Russia invaded two european countries in the 50s and 60s, their expansionist aims are nothing new.

We may well go back to a pre NATO Europe (or rather NATO without the USA in it) but Europe is some 450m people, the richest trading bloc ever known, if we have to re arm to deter Russia, thats what we'll have to do.

Russia has depleted its military in Ukraine, the core of Ukraine resistance will carry on fighting, tying up Russia for many years, invading Latvia or Finland might be beyond them.

@Livida ,

When you reasonably asked me about whether I had contradicted myself about Putin’s rationality, perhaps I had, or at least seemed to.

The truth is that he might be a rational actor, playing by different rules, or he might be an ageing dictator given to bouts of wrath. We don’t know (or, hopefully, our secret services do…).

The problem with nukes is how do you do your risk assessment. The risk is typically the probability of an event multiplied by the outcome, but what probability is acceptable where the outcome is 98% of the human race dying and the remaining 2% having to start from scratch: 1%, 0.1% or 0.01%.

The problem with people saying that there have always been wars is true, but irrelevant. We have had zero wars declared between two nuclear powers. We have no idea what it would look like. As I said above, though, NATO regularly wargames this and, I believe, every single time it has led to Armageddon (will try to find a link for you).

So, we need to stop planning as if it is worth taking a small risk of war, as you could before WW2, where we came out the other side within a couple of decades.

In some ways, that is Trump’s strength, no one knows whether he is a rational actor either, so he is probably the best deterrent to Putin.

But, again, the risk of the brinkmanship going wrong is scary.

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2022/mar/08/russia-ukraine-war-possible-trajectories

This is an interesting article. Obviously some of it has been superseded, but the war game bit still applies and supports what I said above.

@Newbutoldfather yes I agree. And in that scenario I can see why more proxy wars are more likely alongside a general Cold War. So war just outside the edges of a hot word war. Of course there are still all the attendant risks. I guess it's in this context that the idea of Russia attacking NATO directly seems less plausible than Russia attacking a non NATO member. So I'm trying to understand the alarming rhetoric around the suggestion that this is exactly what intelligence suggests russia is planning to do. But perhaps it does come down to, as RTB said, an underestimation of the stakes of the risk Putin is willing to take

I think Trump is in putins pocket. I remember how much this was gleefully referred to in Russian media at the beginning of the Ukraine war. Russia is desperate for trump to be back in the White House. He's one of their own.

@Livida ,

Yes to another cold war and proxy wars. And I agree that there is no upside for Putin in attacking NATO, although his own calculations will consider that if he is humiliated abroad, he personally may face a worse fate at home than a quick nuclear annihilation (or a few years in him and his family’s hardened bunker),

I think Trump and Putin are very similar in character, both ‘strong men’ who are unafraid to use violence and both love power and money. However, I don’t think he will support Putin’s adventurism. He took on Wagner in Syria, apparently, and won.

https://www.businessinsider.com/trump-reportedly-bragged-about-a-classified-battle-in-syria-2018-5?r=US&IR=T

He also won’t leave NATO, as several PPs have claimed. Firstly, it was always just a threat to make the EU pay for their own militaries, which they are finally being dragged kicking and screw into doing. Secondly, a law has just been past stopping the president unilaterally withdrawing. He would now need a super majority in the senate (2/3), which is never going to happen.

I thought that too re the law and yet the likelihood of him withdrawing is all over Twitter with no mention of it. Maybe there's assumption that he would get the support. But on the other hand perhaps the emphasis on military defence right now is also about underscoring that other members of the alliance are indeed investing now. I know that commitment from the eu has been grossly underestimated in America and the commitment is there, though spending does need to be higher

That all depends of the Republicans majority and why couldn't Trump change that law?

European nations are paying in more (apart from UK) due to Ukraine, Trump hasn't been in power for 3 1/2 years, any increase in spending isn't anything to do with him.

This is the guy who tried to overthrow a democratic election result, crazy to think he has limits.

Yes I saw a clip of him talking at the podium about how presidents should have absolute power and if they didn't Hiroshima wouldn't have happened and the war would have been lost. He wants to have power with no checks. He sounds like a fascist.
It's terrifying.

Just what is this NATO general hoping to achieve. How does he want us to prepare? Surely it shouldn't be something announced publicly. Why should he frighten us all like this.

This is all pretty fatalistic (realistic), I feel I am wasting my time in my job which I enjoy but if we are doomed, then what's the point, with no pragmatic information I.e how do we prepare? What do we tell our DC, one of mine is in 6th form, should he be choosing a particular path at uni. My DH is at director level in Architecture but seems unperturbed, no one appears to discuss our impending fate at his workplace or mine. In reality what are people doing with this information?

@jasflowers ,

Well, yes, no shit Sherlock! The EU nations have finally woken up to the fact that doing drills with wooden weapons and shouting bang (Germany) just doesn’t cut it when your neighbour is being invaded.

The EU (ex France and UK) complacently allowed US troops to provide their main defence and to shelter under the petticoats of the expensive U.S nuclear umbrella for decades. NATO was a way for the EU to tax the U.S, and it is not surprising that the U.S eventually got wise to the unfairness of it. I still don’t believe for a moment that Trump had any intention to withdraw, he just wanted them to pay fairly into NATO.

A president can’t unilaterally change a law, doesn’t work like that, and they won’t get a 2/3 majority in the senate.

@Goldenbear ,

The one inevitability is death.

We all go around with the illusion that we are immortal….until we discover we aren’t.

Seems the best thing to do is just carry on assuming that we will live until a ripe old age.

I admit I have been negative on this thread, and it does seem a worrying and depressing time, but positive surprises are always possible too.

Biggest one I am expecting is controlled fusion, and in the next quarter of a century. Suddenly all energy wars cease and humanity had boundless cheap and clean energy. I am not sure why this isn’t discussed and invested in more. We are really close and, just like the atom bomb, it is just an engineering challenge now.

Maybe benign AI takes over and prevents nuclear war (this is an outlier!).

Or maybe Putin dies and, instead of being replaced by a hard man, is replaced by a second Gorbachev.

The more rosy view is much appreciated @Newbutoldfather and I do think we need a counter to the negative because if people lose all hope then the likelihood of innovation and the urge to work together decreases. And we need that more than ever. I know I struggle to function in a world that feels hopeless and I've felt like that quite frequently since 2022

I don’t think it’s this yet but I still see the point in being readier than we were

Plus there seems to be a lack of connecting the dots when people decry US funding generally (you see it on mn). The reality of no US chipping in is much worse

A couple of quick points.
Trump will not pull out of the NATO-the US will continue to be the dominant world military power.
The sanctions have not affected the Russian economy. Russia has found other nations not bound by international law with whom to trade its oil and gas reserves. However, sanctions have had a considerably painful unintended consequence on the Western economies.
Russia will win the proxy war with the West in the Ukraine.
Russia is in an alliance with Iran to disrupt supply lines and destabilise the Middle Eastern region.
I predict the world will be at war in the next decade.

So nothing to do with Trump, glad you now admit it was Ukraine... you've been found to posted incorrect info & resort to being rude.

That was a single supply issue, i could counter with numerous UK issues too, not least running out of ammunition within a day if fighting Russia.

Ukraine was a wake up call to all of Europe but its the UK that has chosen not to increase spending.

That last sentence covers a lot of possibilities. What kind of war are you predicting? And it's not clear how it links as an inevitably to your other predictions?

That was to @Missamyp

@jasflowers ,

Germany might have raised the percentage, trying to get to 2% of GDP, although that is being questioned, and including 19 bio of ‘special’ budget. On the other hand, although the UK hasn’t raised it, we continue to comfortably exceed our commitment to NATO, spending around 2.4% to March 2024. We have made a greater commitment to NATO in blood and treasure for decades than the vast majority of the EU, including our nuclear deterrent.

And you can’t say that Germany being dragged kicking and screaming into (maybe) meeting their obligation to NATO is nothing to do with Trump. I think that Trump’s message plus Ukraine got them to the uncomfortable point where they realised they may have to defend themselves and spend some money on so doing.

Let's hope Russia doesn't win in Ukraine. That's when the danger really increases

@@MagicFox ,

Let’s hope they don’t lose either! To me, that is the biggest immediate danger.

A negotiation from a position of strength where we can say we have deterred Putin and where Putin can say he has won (even if it is just Crimea and a sliver of the Donbas) is the optimal solution, as most expert commentators agree.