4 ms·

The Russian Army is not the powerhouse the Soviet Army once was, relative to NATO. If the Russians go after Estonia/Lithuania/Latvia/Poland/etc conventional NA

The Russian Army is not the powerhouse the Soviet Army once was, relative to NATO. If the Russians go after Estonia/Lithuania/Latvia/Poland/etc conventional NATO forces can stop said invasions, no need to launch nukes. Hell the German military might do some actual fighting for once if their Polish buffer state is threatened.

ericmay 5y ago
Of course, NATO's conventional forces can demolish Russia's conventional forces if they go toe to toe. But what do you do when once NATO war planes or a carrier strike group engage and shoot down Russian planes or bomb Russian tanks when Putin literally nukes an airbase with a small yield tactical nuclear weapon? Keep going at it? Try to stop? I mean that's the crux of the issue. Putin knows that he can't beat NATO toe to toe right? So why is he doing anything? It's because he thinks he can use nuclear weapons to get NATO to back down. IMO. Just taking these two eastern regions isn't enough, because he could have gotten those via diplomacy. My take is basically he has gigantic ambitions, because otherwise everything he is doing makes no sense whatsoever and I can't help but think he's a rational actor.
- scottLobster 5y ago
  If Putin is a rational actor, then what's he following up his tactical nuclear strike with? His conventionally defeated Army? If he's willing to risk that level of escalation then we're beyond rationality. The world is not going to let Putin dictate international politics of entire continents at the point of a nuclear gun. Even the Chinese wouldn't be on board with that. I'm not sure what the best course would be in such an event, but if Russian forces can be otherwise conventionally defeated nuclear retaliation may not even be necessary. If nuclear retaliation is deemed necessary, it would likely be of similar magnitude (targeting invading Russian military formations or something). To turn the question around, is Putin willing to launch ICBMs because NATO won't let him take Estonia?
  - ericmay 5y ago
    So I'd say it's a little bit of timing right? Putin builds up forces yet again, says he won't do anything, "NATO at the border of Belarus this is for security", etc. and then he just goes right in and starts fighting. When the fighting starts and he starts attacking NATO forces and they start responding, he launches a tactical nuclear weapon on an airbase somewhere nearby in Central or Eastern Europe and now what? I mean if nothing else what worries me is the prospect of this spiraling way out of control. To your point about Putin being a rational actor... I mean this is rational for him if your world view is that these countries should be united under Russian leadership. If he were rational, then why would he even invade Ukraine? Why is he so paranoid about NATO? All we want to do is respect human rights (and we have tolerances even) and just have open market economies and democracies. If he were rational why not just integrate Russia with Europe and help Russians become fantastically wealthy? I'm also not sure about the Chinese. I don't think they care. I think they love this. > To turn the question around, is Putin willing to launch ICBMs because NATO won't let him take Estonia? My take is yes. I don't think he's nuking New York and London... but military bases in central and Eastern Europe? I mean will NATO nuke Moscow and then actually trigger MAD over that? If we're being honest what are our actual red lines? For America probably US, UK, France, Spain, Italy, Germany. I honestly don't know about any other country in Europe. What do you think? -edit- (really sad to see people have downvoted you for having an interesting discussion and different point of view. I'm sorry to see that has occured at this point.
    - scottLobster 5y ago
      No worries, I don't structure my opinions for HN Karma :) If he opened an attack on NATO with a tactical nuke he's just escalating things faster. After the shock wore off that would probably increase the odds of a tactical nuclear response in kind, at which point the Russian forces remain defeated. Or perhaps if the West remains restrained and no further nukes are launched, a conventional defeat in spite of Russian tactical nukes. If his goal is to restore the Soviet Union's influence there are reasons to conquer Ukraine (food supply, gas line, black sea access, etc). Starting a war with NATO would be a quick end to those dreams, tactical nukes or not. The West has already proven less complacent than I think he anticipated. He was probably hoping for us to just collectively shrug our shoulders "oh well it's just Ukraine, something something human rights" and just let him have it. Instead we sent Javelins and canceled Nordstream 2, among other measures. On the spectrum of possible responses from "loud noises" to "all-out military intervention", we're closer to the latter than the former. Over a non-NATO country. The West's institutions may be diminished, but they only diminished in the absence of a common adversary. If Putin wants to restore that adversary, the best he'll accomplish in the medium term is restoring our institutions.
- hutrdvnj 5y ago
  > It's because he thinks he can use nuclear weapons to get NATO to back down. When Putin intends to use nuclear weapons against NATO members, then the one and only answer that NATO will come up with is nuclear. This brings us either back to a cold war scenario or doomsday.
- politician 5y ago
  There's another way to look at this: Putin is a rational, risk-averse actor who only engages in territory acquisition when he can encircle the target and guarantee a win in days during winter (because spring and fall are too muddy for vehicles). Crimea follows this pattern: Russia has a navy in the Black Sea and Sea of Azoz. The New York Times map [1] of the build up prior to invasion is enlightening and encouraging for Finland and Poland, less so for the Baltic states. [1] https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2022/world/europe/ukraine-maps.html https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2022/world/europe/ukrain...
  - ericmay 5y ago
    > less so for the Baltic states And... the US and allies and also Russia because if Russia attacks them we're 100% going to war with Russia to defend those allies. There's 0 question of that. It goes back to my OP which is what happens after that starts. Putin knows he can't take on NATO 1-1, so why would he attack those countries? Well he has nuclear weapons and can launch tactical nuclear strikes on NATO airbases and dare the west to risk nuclear war over these countries.
CapricornNoble 5y ago
>>>Hell the German military might do some actual fighting for once Fight with what? The Bundeswehr has almost no tanks. https://www.dw.com/en/german-military-short-on-tanks-for-nato-mission/a-42603112 https://www.dw.com/en/german-military-short-on-tanks-for-nat... https://ukdefencejournal.org.uk/german-military-short-tanks-combat-aircraft-nato-mission/ https://ukdefencejournal.org.uk/german-military-short-tanks-...

ericmay 5y ago

Of course, NATO's conventional forces can demolish Russia's conventional forces if they go toe to toe. But what do you do when once NATO war planes or a carrier strike group engage and shoot down Russian planes or bomb Russian tanks when Putin literally nukes an airbase with a small yield tactical nuclear weapon? Keep going at it? Try to stop? I mean that's the crux of the issue. Putin knows that he can't beat NATO toe to toe right? So why is he doing anything? It's because he thinks he can use nuclear weapons to get NATO to back down. IMO. Just taking these two eastern regions isn't enough, because he could have gotten those via diplomacy. My take is basically he has gigantic ambitions, because otherwise everything he is doing makes no sense whatsoever and I can't help but think he's a rational actor.

scottLobster 5y ago
If Putin is a rational actor, then what's he following up his tactical nuclear strike with? His conventionally defeated Army? If he's willing to risk that level of escalation then we're beyond rationality. The world is not going to let Putin dictate international politics of entire continents at the point of a nuclear gun. Even the Chinese wouldn't be on board with that. I'm not sure what the best course would be in such an event, but if Russian forces can be otherwise conventionally defeated nuclear retaliation may not even be necessary. If nuclear retaliation is deemed necessary, it would likely be of similar magnitude (targeting invading Russian military formations or something). To turn the question around, is Putin willing to launch ICBMs because NATO won't let him take Estonia?
- ericmay 5y ago
  So I'd say it's a little bit of timing right? Putin builds up forces yet again, says he won't do anything, "NATO at the border of Belarus this is for security", etc. and then he just goes right in and starts fighting. When the fighting starts and he starts attacking NATO forces and they start responding, he launches a tactical nuclear weapon on an airbase somewhere nearby in Central or Eastern Europe and now what? I mean if nothing else what worries me is the prospect of this spiraling way out of control. To your point about Putin being a rational actor... I mean this is rational for him if your world view is that these countries should be united under Russian leadership. If he were rational, then why would he even invade Ukraine? Why is he so paranoid about NATO? All we want to do is respect human rights (and we have tolerances even) and just have open market economies and democracies. If he were rational why not just integrate Russia with Europe and help Russians become fantastically wealthy? I'm also not sure about the Chinese. I don't think they care. I think they love this. > To turn the question around, is Putin willing to launch ICBMs because NATO won't let him take Estonia? My take is yes. I don't think he's nuking New York and London... but military bases in central and Eastern Europe? I mean will NATO nuke Moscow and then actually trigger MAD over that? If we're being honest what are our actual red lines? For America probably US, UK, France, Spain, Italy, Germany. I honestly don't know about any other country in Europe. What do you think? -edit- (really sad to see people have downvoted you for having an interesting discussion and different point of view. I'm sorry to see that has occured at this point.
  - scottLobster 5y ago
    No worries, I don't structure my opinions for HN Karma :) If he opened an attack on NATO with a tactical nuke he's just escalating things faster. After the shock wore off that would probably increase the odds of a tactical nuclear response in kind, at which point the Russian forces remain defeated. Or perhaps if the West remains restrained and no further nukes are launched, a conventional defeat in spite of Russian tactical nukes. If his goal is to restore the Soviet Union's influence there are reasons to conquer Ukraine (food supply, gas line, black sea access, etc). Starting a war with NATO would be a quick end to those dreams, tactical nukes or not. The West has already proven less complacent than I think he anticipated. He was probably hoping for us to just collectively shrug our shoulders "oh well it's just Ukraine, something something human rights" and just let him have it. Instead we sent Javelins and canceled Nordstream 2, among other measures. On the spectrum of possible responses from "loud noises" to "all-out military intervention", we're closer to the latter than the former. Over a non-NATO country. The West's institutions may be diminished, but they only diminished in the absence of a common adversary. If Putin wants to restore that adversary, the best he'll accomplish in the medium term is restoring our institutions.
hutrdvnj 5y ago
> It's because he thinks he can use nuclear weapons to get NATO to back down. When Putin intends to use nuclear weapons against NATO members, then the one and only answer that NATO will come up with is nuclear. This brings us either back to a cold war scenario or doomsday.
politician 5y ago
There's another way to look at this: Putin is a rational, risk-averse actor who only engages in territory acquisition when he can encircle the target and guarantee a win in days during winter (because spring and fall are too muddy for vehicles). Crimea follows this pattern: Russia has a navy in the Black Sea and Sea of Azoz. The New York Times map [1] of the build up prior to invasion is enlightening and encouraging for Finland and Poland, less so for the Baltic states. [1] https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2022/world/europe/ukraine-maps.html https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2022/world/europe/ukrain...
- ericmay 5y ago
  > less so for the Baltic states And... the US and allies and also Russia because if Russia attacks them we're 100% going to war with Russia to defend those allies. There's 0 question of that. It goes back to my OP which is what happens after that starts. Putin knows he can't take on NATO 1-1, so why would he attack those countries? Well he has nuclear weapons and can launch tactical nuclear strikes on NATO airbases and dare the west to risk nuclear war over these countries.

CapricornNoble 5y ago

>>>Hell the German military might do some actual fighting for once Fight with what? The Bundeswehr has almost no tanks. https://www.dw.com/en/german-military-short-on-tanks-for-nato-mission/a-42603112 https://www.dw.com/en/german-military-short-on-tanks-for-nat... https://ukdefencejournal.org.uk/german-military-short-tanks-combat-aircraft-nato-mission/ https://ukdefencejournal.org.uk/german-military-short-tanks-...