Did Blinken just announce WWIII?

[White 6]

Ok then teach feel free to explain what makes you think it'll go down easy for NATO

"Easy" is a relative term, but it is assured. Though strategic concepts are passable, even predictable, their execution is surprisingly amateur. Very low level of leadership and even training at lower levels, inability to coordinate independent reflect strict directed control, instead of initiative, at the same time cluck command and control. Their losses in front line equip and aircraft have been huge huge, relative to what they started with as more and more older systems are being seen. Their basic logistic are shitty and logistic are always key. Morale is averagely low, with their conscription patterns, techniques, low level of training level of front line troops, with the many NCO and Officer losses already suffered, etc. All this has been seen and know, with them just dealing with little Ukraine. They have long been thought to be tough on their own terrain and home country territory, but this is not reflected in their fight. Advantage more often than not favors defense in depth, and that is what they are facing and have been facing with Ukraine alone, not to mention NATO, as they have only been involved logistically and equipment from outside the country. I could see them being kicked out of Ukraine, and barring mission creep, that could be the end of it.

 

[Soupnazi630]

it was for us ......

View attachment 927486

~S~

No it wasnt

 

[gipper]

"Easy" is a relative term, but it is assured. Though strategic concepts are passable, even predictable, their execution is surprisingly amateur. Very low level of leadership and even training at lower levels, inability to coordinate independent reflect strict directed control, instead of initiative, at the same time cluck command and control. Their losses in front line equip and aircraft have been huge huge, relative to what they started with as more and more older systems are being seen. Their basic logistic are shitty and logistic are always key. Morale is averagely low, with their conscription patterns, techniques, low level of training level of front line troops, with the many NCO and Officer losses already suffered, etc. All this has been seen and know, with them just dealing with little Ukraine. They have long been thought to be tough on their own terrain and home country territory, but this is not reflected in their fight. Advantage more often than not favors defense in depth, and that is what they are facing and have been facing with Ukraine alone, not to mention NATO, as they have only been involved logistically and equipment from outside the country. I could see them being kicked out of Ukraine, and barring mission creep, that could be the end of it.

Lol.

 

[gipper]

No it wasnt

So, not only do you not know anything about the JFK coup, but also the Cuban Missile Crisis. Lol.

 

[Soupnazi630]

So, not only do you not know anything about the JFK coup, but also the Cuban Missile Crisis. Lol.

I know more than you about both

There was no coup and we did not invade during the missile crises you dumbfuck

 

[CrusaderFrank]

"Easy" is a relative term, but it is assured. Though strategic concepts are passable, even predictable, their execution is surprisingly amateur. Very low level of leadership and even training at lower levels, inability to coordinate independent reflect strict directed control, instead of initiative, at the same time cluck command and control. Their losses in front line equip and aircraft have been huge huge, relative to what they started with as more and more older systems are being seen. Their basic logistic are shitty and logistic are always key. Morale is averagely low, with their conscription patterns, techniques, low level of training level of front line troops, with the many NCO and Officer losses already suffered, etc. All this has been seen and know, with them just dealing with little Ukraine. They have long been thought to be tough on their own terrain and home country territory, but this is not reflected in their fight. Advantage more often than not favors defense in depth, and that is what they are facing and have been facing with Ukraine alone, not to mention NATO, as they have only been involved logistically and equipment from outside the country. I could see them being kicked out of Ukraine, and barring mission creep, that could be the end of it.

I’m not sure what war you’re looking at, it seems to be reports filtered by Litwin. That’s the same Intel that advised Ukraine in the first place

Russia has been slowly and steadily marching westward, letting the Ukrainians lose one Army after another attacking fortified positions defended in depth

 

[TheYellowKing]

"Easy" is a relative term, but it is assured. Though strategic concepts are passable, even predictable, their execution is surprisingly amateur. Very low level of leadership and even training at lower levels, inability to coordinate independent reflect strict directed control, instead of initiative, at the same time cluck command and control. Their losses in front line equip and aircraft have been huge huge, relative to what they started with as more and more older systems are being seen. Their basic logistic are shitty and logistic are always key. Morale is averagely low, with their conscription patterns, techniques, low level of training level of front line troops, with the many NCO and Officer losses already suffered, etc. All this has been seen and know, with them just dealing with little Ukraine. They have long been thought to be tough on their own terrain and home country territory, but this is not reflected in their fight. Advantage more often than not favors defense in depth, and that is what they are facing and have been facing with Ukraine alone, not to mention NATO, as they have only been involved logistically and equipment from outside the country. I could see them being kicked out of Ukraine, and barring mission creep, that could be the end of it.

Want to make a bet Russia won't be kicked from the areas they now control?

 

[Donald H]

perhaps so Don

Negotiations took place for a decade before Russia 'invaded' Ukraine

There was an agreement , was there not?

It was violated ......art 5

Are you asking me about some agreement that was connected to Nato's article 5?

nato's presence is starting to sound like our past cuban missle crisis

~S~

I don't understand how you're seein the two as being similar? Dangerous brinkmanship perhaps?

 

[TheYellowKing]

Yep, stable and prosperous. I've been retired from the military a long time.

You're not the only retired military guy here

 

[Resnic]

I didn't think a country could join nato while it was actively in a war.

 

[sparky]

I don't understand how you're seein the two as being similar? Dangerous brinkmanship perhaps?

brinkmanship might be an apt term Don

~S~

 

[Donald H]

I didn't think a country could join nato while it was actively in a war.

There are no rules to say one can't. It's a good idea to try to help everybody understand the question, even though it hasn't happened and is not likely to happen.

The Ukraine can be brought into Nato as a member without the protection of article 5 and that can be viewed as ignoring Russia's demands.

But of course that wouldn't be ignoring Russia's demands. It would have the effect of embarrassing Nato as Russia continues to trample over the Ukraine's territory and likely up the ante on the war. Nato doesn't want that sort of compromise!

Which decision by Nato would be the most productive?

I think both sides are faced with a question with no answer and so the status quo on limitations will have to continue.

Both sides are barking at the moon if either think they can change that.

 

[Donald H]

brinkmanship might be an apt term Don

~S~

Alright Sparky, in that respect I think you're right. My previous post addresses that and I've given my reasons why I think there's a dead end to the tactic.

 

[Catsnmeters]

When are you enlisting?

Been there done that.

 

[gipper]

Been there done that.

Then you should know better than to advocate for war.

 

[TheYellowKing]

I didn't think a country could join nato while it was actively in a war.

Its (D)ifferent

 

[LordBrownTrout]

Yeah, pretty much....

Vectoring Dangerously - Kunstler

“Strategic ambiguity requires strategic capabilities. Otherwise, it’s just make-believe.” — Lee Slusher on “X”

kunstler.com

"If your situational awareness is well-tuned, you can put together a political weather report from the swirl of events that otherwise seem to confound the degenerate simps who pretend to report the news. Events are tending in the direction of self-reinforcing, ramifying chaos, and the people running the show are obviously insane as they do everything possible to hurry chaos along.

Case in point: Antony Blinken, our Secretary of State, who announced yesterday that Ukraine will get rushed into NATO ASAP. Do you understand that would mean a direct, automatic, peremptory declaration of war against Russia, requiring all of NATO — that is, their combined militaries — to go kinetic inside Ukraine and theoretically inside Russia, too, (a move that has not worked out well for anyone in all of history), because Article Five of the NATO charter states that an armed attack against one is an attack against all, and must be answered with counter-attack? Thus, you see, Mr. Blinken just announced World War Three."

 

[Catsnmeters]

Then you should know better than to advocate for war.

I'm not advocating for war.

I am advocating for not being scared of Russia's idle threats and fear tactics.

America stands up to bullies, it doesn't cower.

 

[gipper]

I'm not advocating for war.

I am advocating for not being scared of Russia's idle threats and fear tactics.

America stands up to bullies, it doesn't cower.

America is the bully.

 

[Catsnmeters]

America is the bully.

Did America invade Ukraine?