[quote]Gkhan wrote:
[quote]Bismark wrote:
[quote]loppar wrote:
[quote]Bismark wrote:
[quote]loppar wrote:
John Dolan aka Gary Brecher aka War Nerd called it three years ago. Another of his predictions coming true.
Unfortunately, we in Eastern/Central Europe swallowed the false assurances from the NATO bureaucrats - “Nothing can happen once you are in NATO, we’ve got your back covered against the Russians. So don’t worry, kick back, abolish conscription and turn your national army into a glorified mobile brigade for overseas deployment in Afghanistan”
[/quote]
Ukraine is not a party to NATO.[/quote]
Yes. I am very aware of that. I am talking about Eastern European countries that joined NATO/EU in the last 15 years.
Now, the mere signing of a pre-preliminary EU cooperation treaty (Kosovo has one, for f**k sake) by Ukraine has triggered an organized, well funded insurgency followed now by an outright invasion by Russia. This means that Russia reserves the right to attempt to enforce foreign (and in many cases domestic) policy of neighboring countries, regardless of their wishes.
Eurasian Customs Union for Ukraine then.
Since the Western leaders publicly stated that they will not help militarily Ukraine, the question is where is the proverbial red line? Hybrid warfare against a NATO member state?
What if it began incrementally, like in Ukraine? Perhaps the Russian minority in Latvia may once again spontaneously organize demonstrations, demanding parity for Russian language and full citizenship? And of course, this can quickly increase to violent clashes, the sporadic arms clashes to a full blown “insurgency” followed by an “incursion”.
Would US of A or Germany go to war with Russia over Latvia?
And the genius of it is that by using the incremental approach, Putin is always giving the West an easy way to puss out, accustoming the public opinion to a new “base line”. A couple of weeks ago, the question was whether Russia was backing the “insurgents” in Ukraine. Now the question is whether the mysterious reinforcements are regular Russian Army units or - get this - soldiers on leave.
If this Russian offensive in Ukraine reaches it’s stated objective (first land bridge to Crimea, then Odessa and link to Transistria), Russia is (again) practically on Romania’s doorstep. And if Putin is your neighbor, he can be offended easily. And you know what that means.
[/quote]
I believe the red line for the use of military force would be aggression against any NATO member. Not only would NATO be severely undermined if such an action went unopposed, but all of the strategically vital security agreements between the United States and her allies as well. Think Japan and South Korea. This would likely lead to the aforementioned states seeking nuclear capability, as the U.S. nuclear umbrella would retain little if any credibility. The nascent nuclear weapon states in turn would present their regional peers with clear and present security dilemmas, which could lead to a wave of horizontal and vertical nuclear proliferation. Overall, the international political landscape would have many more fault lines upon which future conflict could erupt. International security and the global economy would stand precariously beneath a nuclear sword of damocles.[/quote]
It seems like an illusionary nuclear sword of Damocles…Damocles, it’s a name, it should be capitalized. The Ukraine situation proves the West doesn’t have to fortitude to mess with Russia and Putin knows it.[/quote]
How is it illusionary? The American nuclear umbrella has been very successful in preventing horizontal nuclear proliferation. If its credibility was irreparably harmed, American allies would seriously contemplate and very likely pursue nuclear capability themselves to deter aggression. Yes, as a proper noun it should be capitalized. Writing on my phone isn’t always conducive to grammar. Regardless, I hardly need constructive criticism from someone who expresses his geopolitical pontifications as vulgarly as yourself.