11 ms·

The US and NATO knew about troop build up 5 months back. They are as inept as the Russians in controlling/producing outcomes. The whole story is about men, pre

by gsatic 5y ago

The US and NATO knew about troop build up 5 months back. They are as inept as the Russians in controlling/producing outcomes. The whole story is about men, pretending they have control over things that they have no control over. So they focus on all sorts of small ass bullshit.

oblio 5y ago
> The US and NATO knew about troop build up 5 months back. They are as inept as the Russians in controlling/producing outcomes. How could they have controlled the outcome? Especially that of a dictator dead set to recreate Imperial Russia? NATO couldn't get involved directly in any way. Indirect measures such as sanctions would never have been approved preemptively, they had to wait for the attack first, in order to have public opinion accept sanctions.
- trasz 5y ago
  >How could they have controlled the outcome? By providing Ukraine with a shitload of weaponry before Russia invaded. I think the West made the same assumption Putin did: that Russia will squash Ukraine in a few days, and all the western weapons would then be studied and duplicated.
  - oblio 5y ago
    Remember Trump? And Germany getting half its gas from Russia?
  - petre 5y ago
    They'd be escalating if they did that before Russia attacked. However now NATO has an excuse to arm Ukraine under Chapter VII of the UN charter.
bawolff 5y ago
Russia isn't exactly winning here, and russia has totally destroyed most of its soft power and degraded the impression of having a scary military in the process. Like if you approach from a purely machevelian perspective: * Nato's major enemy no longer has as many friends as it used to * NATO now can witness russia's capabilities *NATO members are now reminded why NATO is useful. Countries who previously didn't want in, suddenly do. I don't know what NATO did/didn't do, but the outcome so far seems like the ideal one NATO would want geopolitically, so it doesn't seem like they are inept to me.
- ChuckNorris89 5y ago
  >degraded the impression of having a scary military They're still waving the 'we have nukes' card, so states are still scared though.
  - zaarn 5y ago
    You can't use that card for everything. There are well established geopolitical red lines in the sand where the nukes would be launched, have been for a long while, even during the cold war. Some poking and prodding is generally accepted, and while it will lead to escalations, it'll not lead to war. Only differing leverages politically. If on the other hand, you start waving your red nuke card for every issue you want your opinion to be accepted, then it becomes worthless. Just like in the boy who cried wolf. Where is the line in the sand for the baltic and scandinavian states wanting to join NATO? "If you join NATO, we nuke you" "If you stop trading with us, we nuke you" "If you don't stop trading with the US, we nuke you" "If you don't join the Russian Empire, we nuke you" Sure, russia can bring all those, but I doubt anything but the first one is even considerable for a state. And even then the more you wave the card the more attractive the first option of joining NATO becomes, because once you're in, Russia can't nuke you.
    - ElectricalUnion 5y ago
      > "If you join NATO, we nuke you" I don't think this is specifically true, but being in conflict does prevents you from joining NATO.
      - zaarn 5y ago
        No it doesn't. You merely have to show that you're willing to resolve conflicts peacefully first. Generally so far this has meant "don't be in any conflict", but nothing stops participants from agreeing that, for example, Finland is always willing to resolve things peacefully. And after all, the threat is "if you join NATO", which means while joining NATO they aren't in a conflict, only once they joined.
- 5y ago

by gsatic 5y ago

oblio 5y ago

> The US and NATO knew about troop build up 5 months back. They are as inept as the Russians in controlling/producing outcomes. How could they have controlled the outcome? Especially that of a dictator dead set to recreate Imperial Russia? NATO couldn't get involved directly in any way. Indirect measures such as sanctions would never have been approved preemptively, they had to wait for the attack first, in order to have public opinion accept sanctions.

trasz 5y ago
>How could they have controlled the outcome? By providing Ukraine with a shitload of weaponry before Russia invaded. I think the West made the same assumption Putin did: that Russia will squash Ukraine in a few days, and all the western weapons would then be studied and duplicated.
- oblio 5y ago
  Remember Trump? And Germany getting half its gas from Russia?
- petre 5y ago
  They'd be escalating if they did that before Russia attacked. However now NATO has an excuse to arm Ukraine under Chapter VII of the UN charter.

bawolff 5y ago

Russia isn't exactly winning here, and russia has totally destroyed most of its soft power and degraded the impression of having a scary military in the process. Like if you approach from a purely machevelian perspective: * Nato's major enemy no longer has as many friends as it used to * NATO now can witness russia's capabilities *NATO members are now reminded why NATO is useful. Countries who previously didn't want in, suddenly do. I don't know what NATO did/didn't do, but the outcome so far seems like the ideal one NATO would want geopolitically, so it doesn't seem like they are inept to me.

ChuckNorris89 5y ago
>degraded the impression of having a scary military They're still waving the 'we have nukes' card, so states are still scared though.
- zaarn 5y ago
  You can't use that card for everything. There are well established geopolitical red lines in the sand where the nukes would be launched, have been for a long while, even during the cold war. Some poking and prodding is generally accepted, and while it will lead to escalations, it'll not lead to war. Only differing leverages politically. If on the other hand, you start waving your red nuke card for every issue you want your opinion to be accepted, then it becomes worthless. Just like in the boy who cried wolf. Where is the line in the sand for the baltic and scandinavian states wanting to join NATO? "If you join NATO, we nuke you" "If you stop trading with us, we nuke you" "If you don't stop trading with the US, we nuke you" "If you don't join the Russian Empire, we nuke you" Sure, russia can bring all those, but I doubt anything but the first one is even considerable for a state. And even then the more you wave the card the more attractive the first option of joining NATO becomes, because once you're in, Russia can't nuke you.
  - ElectricalUnion 5y ago
    > "If you join NATO, we nuke you" I don't think this is specifically true, but being in conflict does prevents you from joining NATO.
    - zaarn 5y ago
      No it doesn't. You merely have to show that you're willing to resolve conflicts peacefully first. Generally so far this has meant "don't be in any conflict", but nothing stops participants from agreeing that, for example, Finland is always willing to resolve things peacefully. And after all, the threat is "if you join NATO", which means while joining NATO they aren't in a conflict, only once they joined.
5y ago