Why will Putin invade Ukraine; How shall NATO respond?

[MisterBeale]

‘There Will Be No Winners’ If War Breaks Out - Putin​

 

[night_son]

It looks likely that Putin's Russia will invade a sovereign nation on its border, again. What is his REAL motive?
I'm sure he wants Ukraine's resources (future military slaves) and its geography for strategic advantage (like Crimea). He wants POWER.
OBVIOUSLY, he's afraid of NATO and wants to preserve his Czars-like authoritarianism to secure his wealth.

What shall NATO do?
I think NATO should assist Ukraine to the max and threaten Russia's military as well as economy.
Agree? Why not?

Our military, of the United States that is, is not prepared to fight and defeat a near peer enemy military such as the Russians. When I entered the US Army in 1991 and reached my first duty station our forces were returning from Desert Storm. When the United States deployed its military forces during the lead up to Desert Shield/Storm its doctrine strategy was mass force on force or division vs. division combat. At the time we fully expected Saddam's full military might to be near peer and to put up a "worthy" challenge to our own military. In short, we went into Kuwait as if we were facing the Russians. We used artillery en masse, flew countless air sorties to soften up the enemy, and went about fighting that war as if it were a reenactment of WW2.

Up to around 1998 we (the US Army) continued to train to fight division vs. division sized engagements both in desert and (in a European style environment) against the Russians (and Chinese, perhaps on the Korean Peninsula). In other words, the US military of that time was ready, willing, equipped and able to fight near peer adversaries, such as the Russians.

All of that changed after 9/11 and the kickoff of the global war on terror. From about 2001/2002 US Military doctrine changed . . . for the worse. We very rapidly (in Theater, no less) trained our forces to fight insurgent enemy forces, including unconventional terrorist guerillas, who were often decades behind our own soldiers in gear, weapons and general capabilities. We taught our military forces and their tactics to become dependent on absolute friendly air superiority, and we gave them a false sense of confidence in the process. After drilling into our soldiers' heads for twenty years how to fight under friendly controlled skies and zero enemy artillery or armor capability, we've pretty much ruined them for the bigger, division on division fights against a nearly equal near peer enemy.

Army doctrine of the last twenty years has essentially been a combination of rapid advance under the cover of friendly fighter/bomber/air cavalry who were always there to use for airstrikes and fighting from easily/completely controlled forward operating bases and green zones, many of which could be very easily resupplied. In other words, in most cases, our conventional military learned to fight as a reactive, occupation force who ALWAYS had allied air power on speed dial and almost always had safe, static walls to retreat behind.

If we get into an actual shooting war with Russia in Eastern Europe the skies will not only be contested for a very long time, but for the first time since the fucking Vietnam War our military men and women will have to worry about being on the receiving end of airstrikes and mass artillery barrages. They will have to unlearn how to be a dominant force of occupation fighting against terrorist and insurgent rabble, and how to deal with an enemy who is pretty much as capable as they are, both on the ground and in the skies. We're just not ready for that, and we need about decade to un-fuck ourselves and retrain our forces for near pear combat on a massive scale.

Our politicians and military leaders alike are well aware of everything I've mentioned above and will sure as hell take it into consideration before jumping into war against Russia. At least . . . I hope the Biden administration isn't that suicidal—suicidal enough to challenge a near peer military in an all-out war. On top of all that, there's that little issue of us and the Russians both being nuclear armed powers.

Let Russia have Ukraine—if it comes to that. But it won't come to that. Chances are very, very low Putin sends in the troops.

 

[AzogtheDefiler]

Also, maybe he's just not thinking clearly. Maybe he has health issues.

Sounds like our president

 

[Lesh]

If the troops are intended to invade Ukraine, what are they waiting for? I already told you the troops are there to respond to aggressions against Donezk and Lugansk.

Ask Vlad...I'm sure you have a direct line

 

[Lesh]

This is really bringing out the Russian trolls...and "surprisingly" the Trumpers are lining up with them

 

[MisterBeale]

Our military, of the United States that is, is not prepared to fight and defeat a near peer enemy military such as the Russians. When I entered the US Army in 1991 and reached my first duty station our forces were returning from Desert Storm. When the United States deployed its military forces during the lead up to Desert Shield/Storm its doctrine strategy was mass force on force or division vs. division combat. At the time we fully expected Saddam's full military might to be near peer and to put up a "worthy" challenge to our own military. In short, we went into Kuwait as if we were facing the Russians. We used artillery en masse, flew countless air sorties to soften up the enemy, and went about fighting that war as if it were a reenactment of WW2.

Up to around 1998 we (the US Army) continued to train to fight division vs. division sized engagements both in desert and (in a European style environment) against the Russians (and Chinese, perhaps on the Korean Peninsula). In other words, the US military of that time was ready, willing, equipped and able to fight near peer adversaries, such as the Russians.

All of that changed after 9/11 and the kickoff of the global war on terror. From about 2001/2002 US Military doctrine changed . . . for the worse. We very rapidly (in Theater, no less) trained our forces to fight insurgent enemy forces, including unconventional terrorist guerillas, who were often decades behind our own soldiers in gear, weapons and general capabilities. We taught our military forces and their tactics to become dependent on absolute friendly air superiority, and we gave them a false sense of confidence in the process. After drilling into our soldiers' heads for twenty years how to fight under friendly controlled skies and zero enemy artillery or armor capability, we've pretty much ruined them for the bigger, division on division fights against a nearly equal near peer enemy.

Army doctrine of the last twenty years has essentially been a combination of rapid advance under the cover of friendly fighter/bomber/air cavalry who were always there to use for airstrikes and fighting from easily/completely controlled forward operating bases and green zones, many of which could be very easily resupplied. In other words, in most cases, our conventional military learned to fight as a reactive, occupation force who ALWAYS had allied air power on speed dial and almost always had safe, static walls to retreat behind.

If we get into an actual shooting war with Russia in Eastern Europe the skies will not only be contested for a very long time, but for the first time since the fucking Vietnam War our military men and women will have to worry about being on the receiving end of airstrikes and mass artillery barrages. They will have to unlearn how to be a dominant force of occupation fighting against terrorist and insurgent rabble, and how to deal with an enemy who is pretty much as capable as they are, both on the ground and in the skies. We're just not ready for that, and we need about decade to un-fuck ourselves and retrain our forces for near pear combat on a massive scale.

Our politicians and military leaders alike are well aware of everything I've mentioned above and will sure as hell take it into consideration before jumping into war against Russia. At least . . . I hope the Biden administration isn't that suicidal—suicidal enough to challenge a near peer military in an all-out war. On top of all that, there's that little issue of us and the Russians both being nuclear armed powers.

Let Russia have Ukraine—if it comes to that. But it won't come to that. Chances are very, very low Putin sends in the troops.

Excellent post.

You try to tell them what they are getting is mostly propaganda, they don't listen.

The western leaders are desperate, their plans are falling apart, and they need Russia to try something; but they don't want to engage themselves.

The comments on this video. . .

 

[Lesh]

Our military, of the United States that is, is not prepared to fight and defeat a near peer enemy military such as the Russians.

Jesus...are you fucking kidding?

 

[Lesh]

They are amassing within Russian territory. Do you deny that? So now Russia can't even move it's own troops in it's own territory without Western interference? Wow.

They are absolutely threatening Ukraine.

who the fuck are you trying to kid Vlad?

 

[Lesh]

This is really bringing out the Russian trolls...and "surprisingly" the Trumpers are lining up with them

Boom

 

[MisterBeale]

This is really bringing out the Russian trolls...and "surprisingly" the Trumpers are lining up with them

No. . . you just don't like critical thinkers not reinforcing the propaganda you are watching.

I think I have only read one non-MSM article that believes there is a chance that Russia may invade. And that compares the situation with the security situation just prior to the Crimean war.

Which begs the question. . . if the Western allies can engage in preemptive war for security concerns like we did in Iraq. . why do we hold the monopoly over that moral right?

The Only Argument Against Russian Escalation in Ukraine Is Humanitarian​

In every other way a Muscovite expedition against Kiev makes sense and is overdue​

The Only Argument Against Russian Escalation in Ukraine Is Humanitarian

In every other way a Muscovite expedition against Kiev makes sense and is overdue

anti-empire.com

". . . Putin correctly points out that the combined warmaking potential of NATO is incomparable to that of Russia. If Russia did not possess nuclear weapons it is entirely likely that the scenario of 1853 would have already been organized years ago (perhaps with Chechnya as the pretext).

Not only is Russia the underdog in the weaker position, but its position continues to deteriorate. NATO has annexed the ex-Soviet Baltic and Romania on the Black Sea. Ukraine’s NATO-ization and Banderaization continue. 40 million East Slavs whom a hundred years ago nobody considered any less Russian than the Russians themselves are not just not adding to Russian power, but are being used to subtract from it.

It doesn’t help that the high economic growth (but from a low base) of the early 2000s has dried up. Absent some radical and visionary transformation (but which in the Russian case usually result in something awful — see Lenin, Stalin, Gorbachev, Yeltsin) there is little chance of ever catching up to the West economically. Perhaps in the military-technical sense Russia can nonetheless keep pace, but at what cost? Having to be eternally vigilant against entire Europe, entire North America, and 40 million of your own kin on top isn’t an enviable position. In fact, it is a position that guarantees permanent existential insecurity. Will at one point the Russians have to revert to the Spartan Soviet days where everything revolved around military needs just to be able to remain independent?

The inability to generate enviable growth also means that sadly soft power is lacking. Where in 2013 Russia could still compete for influence on somewhat equal terms, and where the option for Ukraine to trade with both the EU and Russia seemed possible, now over time Ukraine with an anti-Russian school curriculum seems guaranteed to drift farther and farther.. . . "

And this. . . this is an interesting piece authored by Putin himself, which is required reading of every soldier in the Russian Army.

Every Russian Soldier Is Required to Read This 2021 Putin Article on Ukraine​

"We will never allow our historical territories and people close to us living there to be used against Russia"​

Every Russian Soldier Is Required to Read This 2021 Putin Article on Ukraine

"We will never allow our historical territories and people close to us living there to be used against Russia"

anti-empire.com

 

[Bleipriester]

This is really bringing out the Russian trolls...and "surprisingly" the Trumpers are lining up with them

As an European I don´t want war and permanent meddling in our affairs. That threatens our security and living standard. Russia is not our enemy and I oppose all efforts by western planers to make it an enemy.
You ignore the impact that the war paranoia has on Ukraine: The economic impact. It gets worse when western countries clear their embassies and call their citizens back. Do you know how weak Ukraine is economically? Venezuela is stronger and with smaller population. The people don´t need a decline now.

 

[Lesh]

As an European I don´t want war and permanent meddling in our affairs. That threatens our security and living standard. Russia is not our enemy and I oppose all efforts by western planers to make it an enemy.
You ignore the impact that the war paranoia has on Ukraine: The economic impact. It gets worse when western countries clear their embassies and call their citizens back. Do you know how weak Ukraine is economically? Venezuela is stronger and with smaller population. The people don´t need a decline now.

So what part of Russia...err I mean Europe are you from Boris?

 

[Lesh]

No. . . you just don't like critical thinkers not reinforcing the propaganda you are watching.

I think I have only read one non-MSM article that believes there is a chance that Russia may invade. And that compares the situation with the security situation just prior to the Crimean war.

Which begs the question. . . if the Western allies can engage in preemptive war for security concerns like we did in Iraq. . why do we hold the monopoly over that moral right?

The Only Argument Against Russian Escalation in Ukraine Is Humanitarian​

In every other way a Muscovite expedition against Kiev makes sense and is overdue​

The Only Argument Against Russian Escalation in Ukraine Is Humanitarian

In every other way a Muscovite expedition against Kiev makes sense and is overdue

anti-empire.com

". . . Putin correctly points out that the combined warmaking potential of NATO is incomparable to that of Russia. If Russia did not possess nuclear weapons it is entirely likely that the scenario of 1853 would have already been organized years ago (perhaps with Chechnya as the pretext).

Not only is Russia the underdog in the weaker position, but its position continues to deteriorate. NATO has annexed the ex-Soviet Baltic and Romania on the Black Sea. Ukraine’s NATO-ization and Banderaization continue. 40 million East Slavs whom a hundred years ago nobody considered any less Russian than the Russians themselves are not just not adding to Russian power, but are being used to subtract from it.

It doesn’t help that the high economic growth (but from a low base) of the early 2000s has dried up. Absent some radical and visionary transformation (but which in the Russian case usually result in something awful — see Lenin, Stalin, Gorbachev, Yeltsin) there is little chance of ever catching up to the West economically. Perhaps in the military-technical sense Russia can nonetheless keep pace, but at what cost? Having to be eternally vigilant against entire Europe, entire North America, and 40 million of your own kin on top isn’t an enviable position. In fact, it is a position that guarantees permanent existential insecurity. Will at one point the Russians have to revert to the Spartan Soviet days where everything revolved around military needs just to be able to remain independent?

The inability to generate enviable growth also means that sadly soft power is lacking. Where in 2013 Russia could still compete for influence on somewhat equal terms, and where the option for Ukraine to trade with both the EU and Russia seemed possible, now over time Ukraine with an anti-Russian school curriculum seems guaranteed to drift farther and farther.. . . "

And this. . . this is an interesting piece authored by Putin himself, which is required reading of every soldier in the Russian Army.

Every Russian Soldier Is Required to Read This 2021 Putin Article on Ukraine​

"We will never allow our historical territories and people close to us living there to be used against Russia"​

Every Russian Soldier Is Required to Read This 2021 Putin Article on Ukraine

"We will never allow our historical territories and people close to us living there to be used against Russia"

anti-empire.com

You're really up on the Putin line huh?

 

[Bleipriester]

So what part of Russia...err I mean Europe are you from Boris?

I am from Germany and we get over 50 % of our gas from Russia. The EU gets 28 % of its oil, 38 % of its gas and 40 % of its coal from Russia. We the people like energy and heating and won´t exchange it for another period as Uncle Sam´s pets. We don´t need N-rap and burgers at any cost but oil, gas and coal. Those are the facts nobody can get around.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

That is to prevent NATO from attacking Russia, when Russia supports the break away republics with air power and missiles when Ukraine launches assaults into Donbas.

When that happens? Russia wants to make sure NATO doesn't get uppity.

You need to learn to read a fucking map! NATO is not in Ukraine. They are within their own countries for the most part.

 

[Lesh]

I am from Germany and we get over 50 % of our gas from Russia. The EU gets 28 % of its oil, 38 % of its gas and 40 % of its coal from Russia. We the people like energy and heating and won´t exchange it for another period as Uncle Sam´s pets. We don´t need N-rap and burgers at any cost but oil, gas and coal. Those are the facts nobody can get around.

Let me guess...you're a neonazi.

 

[Lesh]

You need to learn to read a fucking map! NATO is not in Ukraine. They are within their own countries for the most part.

You're talking to a Russian troll

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

They are amassing within Russian territory. Do you deny that? So now Russia can't even move it's own troops in it's own territory without Western interference? Wow.

Belarus is Russian territory?

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

You're talking to a Russian troll

Yes, and you are a drunk. So what?

 

[Lesh]

Yes, and you are a drunk. So what?

And you're a fucking retard who acts 20 years older than his age.

Been a tough life huh Cappy?