KipPotapych
Well-Known Member
I really do not understand the point of view (in seriousness) that the “more emboldened Russia” will attack another country and a NATO member in particular. There is zero logic in it. Russia (to point out, we are talking about the modern, call it post-Soviet Russia) had never expressed any interest or intent to attack Poland, the Balts, Finland, Romania, you name it. Had it? I mean how can one seriously talk about it even? It is completely ridiculous, in my opinion. There are obviously real geopolitical consequences to this current conflict that actually have little to do with Ukraine itself. The need for Europe to invest in their own security is also obvious and I mentioned it several times here. However, preparation for actual physical war with Russia is ludicrous. Not the preparation itself per se, but the actual expressed intent and expectation of many different parties to literally be in war with Russia in the next 3 to 6 (Poles and Balts) and 6 to 8 (Germans) years is quite insane. I am not sure how the electorate sees it there, but any politician seriously talking about the possibility in the foreseeable future must be out of touch with reality, “joking”, or pursuing another agenda, political or otherwise. For the Americans, for example, the agenda of such ridiculous claims (American soldiers will be fighting the Russians when they attack a NATO member next) is pretty clear and that is to convince the population (and the political opponents) of the necessity of providing as much aid to Ukraine as possible, as well justifying the aid already provided, because the American interests are directly affected by the result of this war. Yes, I said political opponents and American interests and it may seem contradictory, but it isn’t. In Europe, and Germany in particular, as another example, this agenda may be, but not limited to, convincing the population that there is a real need to invest into the defense sector and rearm despite of the fairly bleak economic situation that is not looking any better in the foreseeable future; convincing the population and justification of the significant material support is not lost in their case either. Note here that no one still expressed with any sense of clarity what “supporting Ukraine as long as it takes” means (as long as what takes?) and what is an acceptable outcome. The stress is made on the “Ukrainians are fighting our fight so that we do not have to”, which is actually quite disrespectful, in my opinion, and heavily (or completely) diminishes what the Ukrainian soldiers and people overall are doing.At some point I expect there will be peace talks. Sadly for Ukraine those talks will involve ceding territory to the Russians.
The possibility then is that an emboldened Russia will just keep coming back for more.
The war drums are all ready beating in the rest of Europe.
If the Ukraine lines of Defence were to ever collapse and Russia were to start advancing across the rest of the Ukraine I honestly don’t know how NATO would respond.
Let’s assume for a second that Russia did intend to attack a NATO state as in “unprovoked aggression”. To what end and for what purpose (I am going to avoid the subject of means entirely in this conversation)? There have been numerous proposals by various individuals, but most seem to agree on either restoration of the Soviet Union (so the Balts are to be incorporated) or the Russian Empire. The latter begs the question of the point in time - that is, are we talking about the 1890’s, at the peak of the Empire, or some other period? At the peak, we are obviously talking about the Baltic States, as well as a good portion of Poland. Well, let’s assume the Russian Empire at its peak is the plan. Let’s then look at the other regions that aren’t members of NATO that were part of the same Empire, in Asia, Europe… Armenia, Georgia, Kazakhstan, all other “stans”, and so on. All are still independent countries, all but one have not been invaded, and all but one are still within their internationally recognized borders. Anyway… It actually feels dumb talking about it.
I will leave a link here to the article written by Mark Galeotti a week or two ago (maybe to show that I am not totally “out of whack”, laughing here, but it is also a pretty good short read):
STOLYPIN: No, World War III is not on the horizon
It has suddenly become unexpectedly and depressingly fashionable to predict the imminence of World War III, and the westward march of Moscow’s grim ...
www.intellinews.com
In regards to the response of NATO to the hypothetical collapse of the Ukrainian lines and Russia moving forward… In my opinion that isn’t worth much, either Russia would stop at the river, perhaps incorporating (or trying to do so) some of the Odessa and Mykolaiv Regions as well, or NATO may send forces to the western Ukraine to basically achieve the same result, perhaps saving Odessa and Mykolaiv. But this scenario is so farfetched that it is probably not even worth discussing.