Europe at War

[The new erato]

No they are not. If they did, Putin would be finished. Not a single NATO crew has fired a single shot.

[Florestan]

No they are not. If they did, Putin would be finished. Not a single NATO crew has fired a single shot.

If a strictly conventional NATO-Russia war started tomorrow, NATO troops would parade on the Red Square coming 9th of May.

Unfortunately, Russia is a nuclear hooligan... 

[drogulus]

No they are not. If they did, Putin would be finished. Not a single NATO crew has fired a single shot.

     The war is being carefully fought via support for Ukraine. I suggested that critics complain about strategy from opposing perspectives. I try to follow these discussions as well as what's happening in the present zone of combat. Some important stuff is not discussed publicly and I only become aware of it by the obvious and remarkable degree to which the Ukes know exactly where Russians are while Russians don't know shit.

[drogulus]

     Of course NATO is fighting a war it didn't wish for. I am entirely familiar with how much NATO didn't want war before Russia invaded Ukraine, and how much they would prefer not to be fighting it now.

[drogulus]

NATO is maintaining a defensive posture. They are doing everything short of 'fighting' anything.

      That may be the best war strategy available considering the risks. You do realize that sending military and intelligence aid to a combatant is a form of limited war, don't you?

[Florestan]

NATO is maintaining a defensive posture. They are doing everything short of 'fighting' anything.

Agreed. NATO is not fighting a war, they (actually, WE) are doing our best to avoid fighting a war.

[amw]

NATO had no business bombing Serbia back then. But heck, Serbia had no nukes. 

No, really, much of a NATO fan as I am, the Kosovo thing was a big blunder. Witness to that is that even today Spain, Romania and Greece, all NATO members, did not recognize an independent Kosovo --- and rightly so.

It's interesting how we're diametrically opposed on almost every political issue and yet agree on Serbia/Kosovo in particular—and, I think, for pretty much the same reasons. (Well ok, we also agree on the unhealthy nature of the Cult of Beethoven, the relatively greater value of Mozart, Schubert and Chopin, and etc.) I guess there's always room for some sort of common ground.

Pleased to see a new(ish) and ongoing Ukrainian offensive against Russia's Kiev front (with at least two spearpoints, near Makariv and Bucha; probably elsewhere as well). For some time now I've thought that front was a bluff, and UA is now calling that bluff. This leaves the RuAF with the choices of a) trying to reinforce this line to keep the pressure on, which means pulling troops away from areas where it actually needs them, or b) actually withdrawing to prevent encirclement/mass casualties, thereby revealing the facade and granting Ukraine a genuine propaganda victory that raises civilian morale. Or I guess c) leave the troops there to die or be captured, but that seems unlikely. (I obviously support option b.) If the front isn't a bluff and has stalled for some other reason (incompetent commanding officer, insufficient supplies, some objective we're unaware of), I don't think that significantly changes these options either.

Apart from that, nothing particularly positive to report, that I've noticed anyway.

      That may be the best war strategy available considering the risks. You do realize that sending military and intelligence aid to a combatant is a form of limited war, don't you?

Sanctions and blockades are also acts of war, incidentally.

[Florestan]

      sending military and intelligence aid to a combatant is a form of limited war

I object to the term "combatant" being applied to Ukraine. They are simply defending their country against a heinous invasion by a foreign army.  I should have thought that sending defensive military and intelligence aid to a nation which has been unprovokedly invaded by another nation is legit under international law. I might be wrong, though.

[drogulus]

Agreed. NATO is not fighting a war, they (actually, WE) are doing our best to avoid fighting a war.

     It's a larger war that's being avoided, at least for now. It's certainly possible that Russia will be ground down so much by failure in Ukraine that it no longer can threaten other counties. If that is what happens, it would be a victory for all of the countries that are contributing to the war effort.

I object to the term "combatant" being applied to Ukraine. They are simply defending their country against a heinous invasion by a foreign army.  I should have thought that sending defensive military and intelligence aid to a nation which has been unprovokedly invaded by another nation is legit under international law. I might be wrong, though.

     I don't know why you object to calling combat what it is. As for defensive warfare, it's legit. Calling a war by its name doesn't suggest otherwise. Do you think Ukrainians would deny they're in a war just because they were subject to an unprovoked attack?

[Todd]

It's tragic, it's sad and it has to stop asap --- but it's very far from "Europeans [...] murder each other at scale".

Actually, I concede you are correct.  NATO estimates ~40K Russian casualties, with ~7000 of them deaths.  Ukrainians have ~1000 civilian deaths and ~1500 casualties, with only a couple thousand or so dead Ukrainian servicemembers.  By European standards, this is peanuts. 

Like for instance who?

Every person who advocates establishing a no-fly zone, sending additional material support (eg, Polish MiGs), and expanded weapons shipments/sales of every conceivable type, which will serve to prolong the war.  A growing number of Congressional leaders say they want more robust action in response to Russia, though some of that is purely political.  Some more ardent hawks mean it.  And then some members of the US press are in war drum beating moods (eg, Chuck Todd).  Maybe there is a more intense push for diplomacy vs military fighting among Europeans.  I spy some tough talk among some European outlets as well, though.

If a strictly conventional NATO-Russia war started tomorrow, NATO troops would parade on the Red Square coming 9th of May.

Just like the Grande Armée.

Sanctions and blockades are also acts of war, incidentally.

Yes.

[drogulus]

     While there are degrees of war, international law may not cover the range of cases with precision. Countries might wish to deny war while fighting by proxy to avoid legal consequences, or to signal to adversaries that that will not be directly attacked if they don't go too far. This was understood in Korea and Vietnam. There's a danger that Putin will decide not to understand limits in Ukraine, and that has to worry Ukrainian partners in what is broadly understood as the defense of Europe against aggression.

[Florestan]

It's interesting how we're diametrically opposed on almost every political issue and yet agree on Serbia/Kosovo in particular—and, I think, for pretty much the same reasons. (Well ok, we also agree on the unhealthy nature of the Cult of Beethoven, the relatively greater value of Mozart, Schubert and Chopin, and etc.) I guess there's always room for some sort of common ground.

Of course there is. For all your apology of Lenin, Stalin and Mao I very much doubt that you were able to shoot me in the head, or even order me to be shot in the head, although according to their doctrine I am an objective class enemy because an unrepentant bourgeois liberal. 

Seriously now, I'm sure that if we met in person we'd get along just fine. If only for our common love for Schumann, 

Look, I often called you names, for which I apologize --- but at least I did read your posts in their entirety. 

[Florestan]

          I don't know why you object to calling combat what it is. As for defensive warfare, it's legit. Calling a war by its name doesn't suggest otherwise.

Are you implying that NATO is currently at war with Russia?

[Florestan]

Every person who advocates establishing a no-fly zone, sending additional material support (eg, Polish MiGs), and expanded weapons shipments/sales of every conceivable type, which will serve to prolong the war.  A growing number of Congressional leaders say they want more robust action in response to Russia, though some of that is purely political.  Some more ardent hawks mean it.  And then some members of the US press are in war drum beating moods (eg, Chuck Todd). 

Ah, okay. I am relieved then, I really am. For a moment I thought you were talking about the official position of the USA / NATO.

Just like the Grande Armée.

The comparison is moot. Napoleon invaded Russia unprovoked.

Actually, the 1812 Overture is very appropriate in these times: a megalomaniac dictator unprovokedly invades a sovereign country and is repelled by both army and people. Count me in.

[Todd]

The comparison is moot. Napoleon invaded Russia unprovoked.

It is very relevant.  Defeating Russia and marching on Moscow is a rather difficult thing to do.  Triumphalism should generally be avoided.

[Todd]

BlackRock's Larry Fink, who oversees $10 trillion, says Russia-Ukraine war is ending globalization

[drogulus]

     The PM of Estonia says:

At NATO, our focus should be simple: Mr. Putin cannot win this war. He cannot even think he has won, or his appetite will grow. We need to demonstrate the will and commit resources to defend NATO territory. To check Russia's aggression, we need to put in place a long-term policy of smart containment.

First, we must help Ukraine in every possible way. The people of Ukraine have not tired, and neither can we. True, Russia's full-scale invasion of Ukraine has galvanized us into action. Allies and partners have made decisions with remarkable determination and unity. But now is the time to go the extra mile.

Ukrainian soldiers are able fighters, but they need weapons and matériel, including longer-range air defense assets and anti-tank missiles to better protect their skies. Defensive military aid must be our top priority, and we must commit ourselves to it for the long haul.

Are you implying that NATO is currently at war with Russia?

     I'm stating the fact that NATO is participating in an undeclared war against Russia, just as the PM of Estonia, a NATO member, says. She says this is what we must do, and I trust it's clear that what must be done is actually being done.

[Florestan]

Defeating Russia and marching on Moscow is a rather difficult thing to do.

Napoleon did it.

Hitler almost did it

NATO would most certainly do it if the war was strictly conventional.

For the record: I'm not a hawk. I don't want the war to escalate, I don't want NATO to go at war with Russia. I want the whole madness to stop asap.

[Todd]

Napoleon did it.

I forgot, did Napoleon defeat Russia?

[Florestan]

     NATO is participating in an undeclared war against Russia

Which for the scelerate Putin is reason enough to go nuke.