5 ms·

So NATO is deliberately prolonging the war at the expense of Ukraine to fulfil some masterplan involving a time-delayed demographic-based attack on Russia to we

by smcl 4y ago

So NATO is deliberately prolonging the war at the expense of Ukraine to fulfil some masterplan involving a time-delayed demographic-based attack on Russia to weaken it? Nah, I don't buy it. Assuming it was possible through increased arms sales/lend-leases/donations to tip the balance (it's not) - wouldn't a quick, comprehensive defeat followed by the accession of Ukraine to NATO and the EU be more of a destabilising black-eye for Russia than a slow-burn demographic time-bomb? Given that they've now seen first-hand the difference between being a NATO member and not, why would Ukraine then go on to burn the possibility of joining by then countering with an invasion of Russia? If it was possible to end this quickly in Ukraine's favour without starting WW3 then NATO countries would have done so. At the very least so the the EU could go back to buying gas and oil from Russia.

WJW 4y ago
It's more of an attack of opportunity rather than a preconceived masterplan I think. In chess terms: the Russians blundered and NATO is taking advantage of it. A similar thing happened with the Sweden and Finland situation: NATO would prefer them to be a part of the alliance but had acquiesced to them remaining neutral. However when the war started and they decided they would actually prefer to join NATO now, the current members (except Turkiye, but even they didn't oppose it on military grounds) were more than happy to fast-track their joining procedures. Never waste a good crisis, as the saying goes. I do think NATO could have done more if they really wanted to end the war quicker. As the original comment mentioned, the western countries have pretty large stockpiles of armored vehicles that could be sent over. There are also plenty of systems like ATACMS and cluster munitions that the USA has but has decided not to supply to Ukraine. The fact that NATO has so far declined to supply these weapons even though they could indeed be used to end the conflict sooner indicates to me that they are not interested in ending the conflict as soon as possible.
- smcl 4y ago
  Well NATO members like Poland, Slovakia and Czech Republic have been supplying armoured vehicles, and importantly they’ve been of the similar type that the Ukrainian army already trained to use and maintain. It’s been stated elsewhere in this thread that you can’t just do s/T72/M1 Abrams/ on an army. I agree that we can do more, but I don’t think we can do enough to turn the tides overnight without trucking in brigades of NATO forces and starting WW3.
- NicoJuicy 4y ago
  There has always been a plan on a sort of escalation ladder. But it was always planned on the stupidity of another country to escalate. And that's exactly what's happening.
justsomehnguy 4y ago
> be more of a destabilising black-eye for Russia than a slow-burn demographic time-bomb? In this situation you can't get rid of all the stale weapons, can't have a hundreds of new weapon contracts and can't have a perfect opportunity to sell LNG. > At the very least so the the EU could go back to buying gas and oil from Russia. This is not in the interests of one NATO country. That wasn't a masterplan, but it's a result of decades of meddling in the politics of all states on Russian border. Yep, there was a disastrous blunder which allowed to the current situation to develop, but always remember what Soviets were 10 feet tall.
- smcl 4y ago
  So I know it doesn't apply everywhere but I'm going to raise Occam's razor here, because either: 1. the war is being deliberately prolonged by US or NATO, despite the economic and political issues it causes domestically in many NATO countries, with the purpose of offloading some military equipment, selling a bit of LNG for a while and triggering a demographic problem some point in the future (one that didn't topple the USSR when it last occurred after WW2) 2. winning a war is hard and there's only so much hardware a country can use, and it's not clear at what point helping one country causes their opponent to turn to nuclear weapons The first possibility involves nations acting against their own self-interests in service of a combination of small-fry trade and some nefarious bond villain style plan. The second involves some simple and observable facts. > but it's a result of decades of meddling in the politics of all states on Russian border I presume you are referring to Russia’s meddling in those states? > This is not in the interests of one NATO country. The entire EU would have been delighted if they were able to keep buying Russian gas at the price they did. They’ve just about managed to cobble together supplies to make it through the winter, and have bodged this floating LNG terminal quickly signalling what the future of EU gas imports probably look like. But make no mistake if they had a way to keep buying cheap Russian gas without throwing Ukraine under the bus they would absolutely have taken it. That ship has since sailed.
  - justsomehnguy 4y ago
    > I presume you are referring to Russia’s meddling in those states? I presume you are completely oblivious on what US did in Ukraine in the last 30 years? Or it's a totally different thing, because evil Russkies and democratic Americans? > But make no mistake if they had a way to keep buying cheap Russian gas without throwing Ukraine under the bus they would absolutely have taken it. You are stating the reason here yet you are totally ignore it yourself. There is one country what doesn't depend on Russian gas and to which prolonging the crisis only provides benefits without downsides? > raise Occam's razor You need to compare comparable things. One thing is a Bond-like master plan. Other one is 'oh things hard' ignoring what this thing were baked for decades.

by smcl 4y ago

WJW 4y ago

It's more of an attack of opportunity rather than a preconceived masterplan I think. In chess terms: the Russians blundered and NATO is taking advantage of it. A similar thing happened with the Sweden and Finland situation: NATO would prefer them to be a part of the alliance but had acquiesced to them remaining neutral. However when the war started and they decided they would actually prefer to join NATO now, the current members (except Turkiye, but even they didn't oppose it on military grounds) were more than happy to fast-track their joining procedures. Never waste a good crisis, as the saying goes. I do think NATO could have done more if they really wanted to end the war quicker. As the original comment mentioned, the western countries have pretty large stockpiles of armored vehicles that could be sent over. There are also plenty of systems like ATACMS and cluster munitions that the USA has but has decided not to supply to Ukraine. The fact that NATO has so far declined to supply these weapons even though they could indeed be used to end the conflict sooner indicates to me that they are not interested in ending the conflict as soon as possible.

smcl 4y ago
Well NATO members like Poland, Slovakia and Czech Republic have been supplying armoured vehicles, and importantly they’ve been of the similar type that the Ukrainian army already trained to use and maintain. It’s been stated elsewhere in this thread that you can’t just do s/T72/M1 Abrams/ on an army. I agree that we can do more, but I don’t think we can do enough to turn the tides overnight without trucking in brigades of NATO forces and starting WW3.
NicoJuicy 4y ago
There has always been a plan on a sort of escalation ladder. But it was always planned on the stupidity of another country to escalate. And that's exactly what's happening.

justsomehnguy 4y ago

> be more of a destabilising black-eye for Russia than a slow-burn demographic time-bomb? In this situation you can't get rid of all the stale weapons, can't have a hundreds of new weapon contracts and can't have a perfect opportunity to sell LNG. > At the very least so the the EU could go back to buying gas and oil from Russia. This is not in the interests of one NATO country. That wasn't a masterplan, but it's a result of decades of meddling in the politics of all states on Russian border. Yep, there was a disastrous blunder which allowed to the current situation to develop, but always remember what Soviets were 10 feet tall.

smcl 4y ago
So I know it doesn't apply everywhere but I'm going to raise Occam's razor here, because either: 1. the war is being deliberately prolonged by US or NATO, despite the economic and political issues it causes domestically in many NATO countries, with the purpose of offloading some military equipment, selling a bit of LNG for a while and triggering a demographic problem some point in the future (one that didn't topple the USSR when it last occurred after WW2) 2. winning a war is hard and there's only so much hardware a country can use, and it's not clear at what point helping one country causes their opponent to turn to nuclear weapons The first possibility involves nations acting against their own self-interests in service of a combination of small-fry trade and some nefarious bond villain style plan. The second involves some simple and observable facts. > but it's a result of decades of meddling in the politics of all states on Russian border I presume you are referring to Russia’s meddling in those states? > This is not in the interests of one NATO country. The entire EU would have been delighted if they were able to keep buying Russian gas at the price they did. They’ve just about managed to cobble together supplies to make it through the winter, and have bodged this floating LNG terminal quickly signalling what the future of EU gas imports probably look like. But make no mistake if they had a way to keep buying cheap Russian gas without throwing Ukraine under the bus they would absolutely have taken it. That ship has since sailed.
- justsomehnguy 4y ago
  > I presume you are referring to Russia’s meddling in those states? I presume you are completely oblivious on what US did in Ukraine in the last 30 years? Or it's a totally different thing, because evil Russkies and democratic Americans? > But make no mistake if they had a way to keep buying cheap Russian gas without throwing Ukraine under the bus they would absolutely have taken it. You are stating the reason here yet you are totally ignore it yourself. There is one country what doesn't depend on Russian gas and to which prolonging the crisis only provides benefits without downsides? > raise Occam's razor You need to compare comparable things. One thing is a Bond-like master plan. Other one is 'oh things hard' ignoring what this thing were baked for decades.