I have read in many places that NATO lacks resources for a war against Russia. So why are Macron and others expressing such bravado, unless they know something we don't?
I suppose "stupidity" is an answer, but I find it hard to believe that there is not one person in the French Ministry of Defense or military that cannot take Macron aside and tell him that his mouth is writing checks that his ass cannot cash.
Failure sets in when you start with the wrong presumptions. Russia was weak, low morale, NATO weapons and tactis are superior. Many still believe Ukraine can win if we just give them the weapons. What weapons can we give that can make a change?
I've seen plenty of videos where Lancets take out NATO AD systems, aren't they supposed to shoot them down? What will more Patriots do? Ukraine doesn't have to trained soldiers to operate such complex systems, so NATO must operate and die with it when Russia strikes them again.
In a direct war NATO factories will be targeted by unstopable hypersonics. Will NATO be even to sustain a war knowing production is already low?
Russia doesn't even have to target main targets. The West has created an undefendable energy grid. It won't be difficult to inflict major damage on wind and solar farms.
I don't like hypocricy and the constant crying. Ukraine decided to target oil refineries and they could expect a strong response. We have seen how Russia answered. Maybe admit that you lost the war and there's nothing more we can do. I still expect NATO doing something really stupid, sending troops is one of them. But even when not participating they will sitting ducks. There's a chance Putin decide not to attack them because they don't need to. Freeing up more troops, sending women to the front, it just a delay, they will be systematical destroyed.
I read a piece how we in the West created a system that generates narcists as leaders. They will never accept defeat, narcists can never be to blamed, they are destructive and rather drag te world with them than facing reality that they screwed up.
And one small last detail, the West is bankrupt. There's no money, all governments need to make big cuts in spending, their net zero policies destroy the economy, inflation still rampant.
Oh, is there also a chance China or North-Korea would enter a war between Russia and NATO? I think it's in Chinas interest that Russia wins and be a strong regional player.
Your article was excellent until it said "Attempts to bring Ukraine and Georgia into NATO, and partnerships with Azerbaijan, Armenia, Kazakhstan, and Moldova caused considerable angst in Russia where they were seen treading on the Russian sphere of influence." America has a "sphere of influence" throughout North and South America, but Russia doesn't have a "sphere of influence" in eastern Europe. It instead has the U.S. regime, via its NATO military alliance against Russia, spreading its effective control right up to Russia's border via NATO, and thereby threatening to plant and fire ultimately a blitz-nuclear missile from Ukraine into The Kremlin 317 miles (five minute of flying-time) away, which Russia had to prevent by invading Ukraine on 24 February 2022. The reason Russia will win this war is because it must in order to continue as a sovereign independent nation instead of to become the last European nation to become yet another colony ('ally') of the U.S. imperial regime. Russia needs that (to remain a sovereign independent nation). The U.S. regime doesn't need to conquer Russia. Russia will do what it must do, whereas America can, at best, only TRY to do what it wants to do -- which is to take control over the entire world.
President Putin's demands for security agreement December 17, 2021:
A legally binding guarantee that NATO would not admit any new members, especially Ukraine and Georgia, and that it would not deploy any additional troops or weapons in the existing member states.
A revision of the 1997 NATO–Russia Founding Act, which regulates the military activities and cooperation between NATO and Russia, and a withdrawal of NATO's infrastructure and capabilities from the territories that were not part of NATO as of 1997.
A moratorium on the deployment of intermediate-range and shorter-range missiles in Europe, and a dialogue on strategic stability and arms control.
A reform of the OSCE to make it more representative, inclusive, and effective in addressing the security challenges and conflicts in Europe.
President Putin's stated objectives for SMO February 24, 2022
De-nazify Ukraine
De-militarize Ukriane
Provide neutral (non-hostile to Russia) government in Ukraine
The declaration of war speech (following dramatic increase in Ukraine's bombardment of Donetsk from Feb 18 to 24th as monitored by OSCE which was the culmination of the massive Ukrainian troop buildup along the line of contact, ostensibly to prepare for retaking Crimea. The LPR and DPR requested formal integration with Russia during this period and the Russian Duma ratified the reunion request). A legally binding guarantee that NATO would not admit any new members, especially Ukraine and Georgia, and that it would not deploy any additional troops or weapons in the existing member states.
Wow! That is a lot to unpack and kudos to the monumental effort in succinctly distilling the historical overview! I would like to humbly offer additional input... not to detract from the excellent article but to augment the historical perspective. First, "For the purpose of reference, the Ukraine war has been raging for two years and two months." Well, the SMO has been raging that long but the ATO has been ongoing since Maidan days (Ukraine's War On Terror against the eastern oblast "separatists'). Therefore the conflict has been raging 10 years with the upcoming anniversary of the neo-nazi "BBQ" that methodically and cold-bloodedly slaughtered over 40 peaceful people in the Odessa Trade Union...most of whom were burned to death by pouring combustible liquid on their heads and lighting them on fire, extinguishing the corpses left in agonal positions with fire extinguishers (so the perpetrators wouldn't burn themselves. They bragged about it and even posted photos on Facebook and called the victims "matches") blackened heads from the fire) and Colorado beetles (St Georges ribbons). (A Ukrainian female journalist went in after and documented the horror including the iconic photo of the pregnant cleaning lady half-lying off a desk who was strangled with a phone cord. Her work is hard to find...memory-holed as it were, but vestiges of it are preserved :https://consortiumnews.com/2022/04/30/curfew-for-anniversary-of-odessa-massacre-that-sparked-rebellion/ (Please take the embedded video "graphic warning": seriously...it presents a fraction of the photo documentation of what is truly demonic savagery and is very disturbing to view).
If the Russians were at war the first thing to go would be the US/NATO ISR.; all satellites and spy drones used by the west over the region would be blinded/destroyed and NATO would effectively be blind. Targeting of Crimean infrastructure, the Black Sea fleet, and Russian assets would be greatly complicated if not impossible (given the "eye-watering" Russian electronic warfare capacity.
Furthermore I suggest NATO has been active in Ukraine "unofficially" for years, helping design the fortifications along the line of contact that was established under Minks agreements; it is arguably the most fortified place on earth with millions of cubic yards of concrete bunkers, tunnels, and revetments integrated with the numerous mines and Soviet era (bomb-proof) infrastructure all built since 2014. Ukraine has been host to numerous "joint" military exercises with NATO; was all the equipment really removed when they ended? (Typically it is left behind).
Will NATO fight? is, in my opinion, the wrong question. Will NATO elites be able to use Russia to frighten their populations sufficiently to avoid accountability for the failed policies of the last ten years? I fear so. I believe the rhetoric is for domestic consumption, not the Russians. My evidence is that every article I have read about possible war with Russia includes the promotion of a defense eurobond and subsequent increased taxing authority for the EC. Nearly no one speaks against it because to do so is to be called, falsely, a kremlin agent, or, more quietly, a US agent. Europe being able to stand up on its own against Russia also means that they can stand up to the US. But smaller countries in Europe also fear the larger countries in Europe, and let themselves be used by the US to keep Germany from consolidating power. I hope for peace.
One of the reasons for NATO was to prevent conflict among the Europeans, wasn't it? That would explain why it was acceptable for the US to have most of the forces and the control, while UK and the continental powers remained lightweight.
Implies that as long as Europeans are equally unprepared for land war, it's a not a first class problem. Conversely, any one country making real preparations would eventually cause concern.
US on the other hand, now has all conditions in place to go on a rearmament kick. So the question could be, does the US want to put some real chips down, presumably during the next presidential term? Either increase the 'trainers' by an order of magnitude, or declare victory and move on.
Someone on one of these substack comment threads linked an academic paper, which found that those US post-WWII conflicts which drag on, tend to a yo-yo cycle of extreme optimism and pessimism. With the doubling-down moves coming naturally at the low end, such as now, often to "kick the can down the road" for political reasons. As things go, Ukraine seems to be trending for a crisis by the end of the year, but they shouldn't be demographically exhausted for a few years more.
The NATO's credibility has suffered in the Ukrainian conflict, for sure. However it still has its most potent weapon left: The GAD (Generally Accepted Delusion) that any nation can call for article 5 and the rest comes running, weapons drawn.
This is why France should (will?) not be allowed to send soldiers under the french flag to the Ukraine. Because they will lose badly, and France will call for support. And they won't get it.
That would be the death knell for the article 5 GAD. And by extension also for the NATO.
So, no. The NATO will not fight in the Ukraine.
(The NATO will never fight against a peer opponent for that matter.)
My biggest concern is American readiness that has suffered from the current thing the current administration wants to do. The specter of the Afghanistan withdrawal and politics driving military inaction.
Now, the US is building weapons and needed air defense assets as fast as possible to combat COTS suicide drones. The Air Force is using stealth and tech to offset numbers. The Marines are resizing into an expeditionary force that is supposed to be light, mobile, and lethal.
The question is can countries ramp up to high intensity conflict in time to offset the Bear.
Macron and the Mayor of NYC have the same goal. Destroy their municipality, while appearing to be incompetent. They are both Globalists who are tasked with destruction, in order to build back better.
Politicians and leaders who promote war should be the first to be sent to the front lines along with their families.
I have read in many places that NATO lacks resources for a war against Russia. So why are Macron and others expressing such bravado, unless they know something we don't?
I suppose "stupidity" is an answer, but I find it hard to believe that there is not one person in the French Ministry of Defense or military that cannot take Macron aside and tell him that his mouth is writing checks that his ass cannot cash.
NATO has given away most of its equipment and doesn't have the industrial basis to engage in a high intensity war against Russia either.
It can't produce enough tanks, artillery shells and AD missiles, so what are we even talking about?
Either Macron and Co are bluffing or delusional. But it's not the first time, leaders have sleepwalked into a world war...
Failure sets in when you start with the wrong presumptions. Russia was weak, low morale, NATO weapons and tactis are superior. Many still believe Ukraine can win if we just give them the weapons. What weapons can we give that can make a change?
I've seen plenty of videos where Lancets take out NATO AD systems, aren't they supposed to shoot them down? What will more Patriots do? Ukraine doesn't have to trained soldiers to operate such complex systems, so NATO must operate and die with it when Russia strikes them again.
In a direct war NATO factories will be targeted by unstopable hypersonics. Will NATO be even to sustain a war knowing production is already low?
Russia doesn't even have to target main targets. The West has created an undefendable energy grid. It won't be difficult to inflict major damage on wind and solar farms.
I don't like hypocricy and the constant crying. Ukraine decided to target oil refineries and they could expect a strong response. We have seen how Russia answered. Maybe admit that you lost the war and there's nothing more we can do. I still expect NATO doing something really stupid, sending troops is one of them. But even when not participating they will sitting ducks. There's a chance Putin decide not to attack them because they don't need to. Freeing up more troops, sending women to the front, it just a delay, they will be systematical destroyed.
I read a piece how we in the West created a system that generates narcists as leaders. They will never accept defeat, narcists can never be to blamed, they are destructive and rather drag te world with them than facing reality that they screwed up.
And one small last detail, the West is bankrupt. There's no money, all governments need to make big cuts in spending, their net zero policies destroy the economy, inflation still rampant.
Oh, is there also a chance China or North-Korea would enter a war between Russia and NATO? I think it's in Chinas interest that Russia wins and be a strong regional player.
Your article was excellent until it said "Attempts to bring Ukraine and Georgia into NATO, and partnerships with Azerbaijan, Armenia, Kazakhstan, and Moldova caused considerable angst in Russia where they were seen treading on the Russian sphere of influence." America has a "sphere of influence" throughout North and South America, but Russia doesn't have a "sphere of influence" in eastern Europe. It instead has the U.S. regime, via its NATO military alliance against Russia, spreading its effective control right up to Russia's border via NATO, and thereby threatening to plant and fire ultimately a blitz-nuclear missile from Ukraine into The Kremlin 317 miles (five minute of flying-time) away, which Russia had to prevent by invading Ukraine on 24 February 2022. The reason Russia will win this war is because it must in order to continue as a sovereign independent nation instead of to become the last European nation to become yet another colony ('ally') of the U.S. imperial regime. Russia needs that (to remain a sovereign independent nation). The U.S. regime doesn't need to conquer Russia. Russia will do what it must do, whereas America can, at best, only TRY to do what it wants to do -- which is to take control over the entire world.
President Putin's demands for security agreement December 17, 2021:
A legally binding guarantee that NATO would not admit any new members, especially Ukraine and Georgia, and that it would not deploy any additional troops or weapons in the existing member states.
A revision of the 1997 NATO–Russia Founding Act, which regulates the military activities and cooperation between NATO and Russia, and a withdrawal of NATO's infrastructure and capabilities from the territories that were not part of NATO as of 1997.
A moratorium on the deployment of intermediate-range and shorter-range missiles in Europe, and a dialogue on strategic stability and arms control.
A reform of the OSCE to make it more representative, inclusive, and effective in addressing the security challenges and conflicts in Europe.
President Putin's stated objectives for SMO February 24, 2022
De-nazify Ukraine
De-militarize Ukriane
Provide neutral (non-hostile to Russia) government in Ukraine
The declaration of war speech (following dramatic increase in Ukraine's bombardment of Donetsk from Feb 18 to 24th as monitored by OSCE which was the culmination of the massive Ukrainian troop buildup along the line of contact, ostensibly to prepare for retaking Crimea. The LPR and DPR requested formal integration with Russia during this period and the Russian Duma ratified the reunion request). A legally binding guarantee that NATO would not admit any new members, especially Ukraine and Georgia, and that it would not deploy any additional troops or weapons in the existing member states.
https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2022/2/24/putins-speech-declaring-war-on-ukraine-translated-excerpts
So sad one has to go to Al Jazeera to get the text of his speech...
Wow! That is a lot to unpack and kudos to the monumental effort in succinctly distilling the historical overview! I would like to humbly offer additional input... not to detract from the excellent article but to augment the historical perspective. First, "For the purpose of reference, the Ukraine war has been raging for two years and two months." Well, the SMO has been raging that long but the ATO has been ongoing since Maidan days (Ukraine's War On Terror against the eastern oblast "separatists'). Therefore the conflict has been raging 10 years with the upcoming anniversary of the neo-nazi "BBQ" that methodically and cold-bloodedly slaughtered over 40 peaceful people in the Odessa Trade Union...most of whom were burned to death by pouring combustible liquid on their heads and lighting them on fire, extinguishing the corpses left in agonal positions with fire extinguishers (so the perpetrators wouldn't burn themselves. They bragged about it and even posted photos on Facebook and called the victims "matches") blackened heads from the fire) and Colorado beetles (St Georges ribbons). (A Ukrainian female journalist went in after and documented the horror including the iconic photo of the pregnant cleaning lady half-lying off a desk who was strangled with a phone cord. Her work is hard to find...memory-holed as it were, but vestiges of it are preserved :https://consortiumnews.com/2022/04/30/curfew-for-anniversary-of-odessa-massacre-that-sparked-rebellion/ (Please take the embedded video "graphic warning": seriously...it presents a fraction of the photo documentation of what is truly demonic savagery and is very disturbing to view).
If the Russians were at war the first thing to go would be the US/NATO ISR.; all satellites and spy drones used by the west over the region would be blinded/destroyed and NATO would effectively be blind. Targeting of Crimean infrastructure, the Black Sea fleet, and Russian assets would be greatly complicated if not impossible (given the "eye-watering" Russian electronic warfare capacity.
Furthermore I suggest NATO has been active in Ukraine "unofficially" for years, helping design the fortifications along the line of contact that was established under Minks agreements; it is arguably the most fortified place on earth with millions of cubic yards of concrete bunkers, tunnels, and revetments integrated with the numerous mines and Soviet era (bomb-proof) infrastructure all built since 2014. Ukraine has been host to numerous "joint" military exercises with NATO; was all the equipment really removed when they ended? (Typically it is left behind).
Will NATO fight? is, in my opinion, the wrong question. Will NATO elites be able to use Russia to frighten their populations sufficiently to avoid accountability for the failed policies of the last ten years? I fear so. I believe the rhetoric is for domestic consumption, not the Russians. My evidence is that every article I have read about possible war with Russia includes the promotion of a defense eurobond and subsequent increased taxing authority for the EC. Nearly no one speaks against it because to do so is to be called, falsely, a kremlin agent, or, more quietly, a US agent. Europe being able to stand up on its own against Russia also means that they can stand up to the US. But smaller countries in Europe also fear the larger countries in Europe, and let themselves be used by the US to keep Germany from consolidating power. I hope for peace.
One of the reasons for NATO was to prevent conflict among the Europeans, wasn't it? That would explain why it was acceptable for the US to have most of the forces and the control, while UK and the continental powers remained lightweight.
Implies that as long as Europeans are equally unprepared for land war, it's a not a first class problem. Conversely, any one country making real preparations would eventually cause concern.
US on the other hand, now has all conditions in place to go on a rearmament kick. So the question could be, does the US want to put some real chips down, presumably during the next presidential term? Either increase the 'trainers' by an order of magnitude, or declare victory and move on.
Someone on one of these substack comment threads linked an academic paper, which found that those US post-WWII conflicts which drag on, tend to a yo-yo cycle of extreme optimism and pessimism. With the doubling-down moves coming naturally at the low end, such as now, often to "kick the can down the road" for political reasons. As things go, Ukraine seems to be trending for a crisis by the end of the year, but they shouldn't be demographically exhausted for a few years more.
Prescient
Ukraine losing would be humiliating, but people would move on.
If NATO intervenes directly and then its people give up after 50,000 casualties that would be truly paradigm shifting.
The threat of NATO intervention is way higher risk/reward then actual intervention.
The NATO's credibility has suffered in the Ukrainian conflict, for sure. However it still has its most potent weapon left: The GAD (Generally Accepted Delusion) that any nation can call for article 5 and the rest comes running, weapons drawn.
This is why France should (will?) not be allowed to send soldiers under the french flag to the Ukraine. Because they will lose badly, and France will call for support. And they won't get it.
That would be the death knell for the article 5 GAD. And by extension also for the NATO.
So, no. The NATO will not fight in the Ukraine.
(The NATO will never fight against a peer opponent for that matter.)
My biggest concern is American readiness that has suffered from the current thing the current administration wants to do. The specter of the Afghanistan withdrawal and politics driving military inaction.
Now, the US is building weapons and needed air defense assets as fast as possible to combat COTS suicide drones. The Air Force is using stealth and tech to offset numbers. The Marines are resizing into an expeditionary force that is supposed to be light, mobile, and lethal.
The question is can countries ramp up to high intensity conflict in time to offset the Bear.
Macron and the Mayor of NYC have the same goal. Destroy their municipality, while appearing to be incompetent. They are both Globalists who are tasked with destruction, in order to build back better.