11 ms·

"An actual war breaking out, against the full Russian army, that NATO isn't directly involved in so it's fought in a very different way than NATO would, but in

"An actual war breaking out, against the full Russian army, that NATO isn't directly involved in so it's fought in a very different way than NATO would, but in which a large part of the equipment is still provided by NATO" is quite different though. NATO would have air superiority and not need as many stingers.

semicolon_storm 3y ago
A proxy war between NATO and Russia isn’t that rare of an edge case.
- greesil 3y ago
  Hindsight, dude
- HarryHirsch 3y ago
  The proxy war started in 2014 with Euromaidan. Here is what's baffling: no army goes to war except with strategic plans. The geniuses in the Pentagon decided to push for war but omitted to make plans for armament supplies! The same mistake thankfully did Hitler in - the switch to the war economy came only in 1942 when it was clear that Stalingrad was going to fall.
  - Scarblac 3y ago
    The Pentagon did not push for war at all, this is a Russian invasion.
    - HarryHirsch 3y ago
      The Pentagon should have recognized that the Eastern expansion of NATO would collide with the national security interests of Russia, and that war would be the inevitable consequence. It probably even did, the task of the High Command is to draw up and revise plans for every contingency. What went on between the Pentagon and the Secretary of State's office? Why was the military establishment with all its experience in logistics overruled? The incompetence and lack of preparedness that are on view here is staggering.
      - martin8412 3y ago
        NATO is a defensive alliance. The defensive alliance is only at odds with Russia due to the imperialist tendencies. Not to mention that Russia has had a land border with NATO since 1948.
        sudosysgen 3y ago
        NATO is a general purpose alliance with a defensive clause amongst many and a history of involvement in offensive operations.
      - Scarblac 3y ago
        > The Pentagon should have recognized that the Eastern expansion of NATO would collide with the national security interests of Russia, and that war would be the inevitable consequence. NATO is absolutely zero threat to Russia, and Russia knows it. Finland joined and Russia shrugged, and has since even removed many troops from that border because it knows NATO will not attack. What matters is the national security interests of Ukraine. Russia is a massive threat to the national security interests of Ukraine, and Ukraine really wants to join NATO to be safe from Russia. Russia knew that if it wanted to invade and conquer Ukraine, a souvereign country, it would have to do soon because it would not be possible anymore after Ukraine joined NATO. Russian security interests, fuck off. Neither Ukraine nor NATO is a threat to Russia. Ukraine's security interests, those are very obviously threatened.
        multjoy 3y ago
        > and has since even removed many troops from that border because it knows NATO will not attack. They've removed them because they need to avoid any possibility of a provocation. The merest hint of a wrongful look at Finland will not go well for them.
        Scarblac 3y ago
        They removed them because they're sending them all to Ukraine.
    - avgcorrection 3y ago
      This whole debate is so moralistic. What matters as far as planning is concerned is analyzing likely outcomes given your own actions. We can for the sake of the argument just take as a given that the Russian government is bloodthirsty and expansionist and wants Ukraine. Event: Euromaidan Likely long-term outcomes: ? There’s not more to it than that. No need to moralize over who did what or who is culpable. This is all about one entity (America) analyzing likely outcomes given a series of events.
      - stale2002 3y ago
        > We can for the sake of the argument just take as a given that the Russian government is bloodthirsty and expansionist and wants Ukraine. No, actually. I do not think it should have been taken for granted that Russia would be stupid enough to do this invasion. The fact that they were willing to make such insane strategic bludders is a bit of a surprise.
      - avgcorrection 3y ago
        > What matters as far as planning is concerned is analyzing likely outcomes given your own actions. Should have been: given any kind of event.
    - thegaulofthem 3y ago
      Technically correct, it was the US State Department and Congress (See: McCain, et. al.) implicated in the ouster of a legitimately elected Ukrainian president in what would most reasonably be described as a violent coup with the president being far upon by far-right militia, one that might reasonably described as Neo-Nazi in nature. Considering Us behavior when the Soviet Union installed assets on Cuba, there isn’t a whole lot of ethical ground to be found here. Just Great Power politicians playing stupid games with innocent lives.
      - lostlogin 3y ago
        The US wasn’t invading Cuba when that happened. If the US had put nukes in Ukraine and pointed them at Russia, and did so before the Crimean invasion, your comparison might be more fair.
      - calgarymicro 3y ago
        Yup, poor innocent Yanukovych was only minding his own business when the cruel protestors set upon him, he definitely wasn't ramming through draconian laws[0] that would have ended free speech and the right to protest, given the secret police expansive powers, and censored the internet. [0]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-protest_laws_in_Ukraine https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-protest_laws_in_Ukraine
      - lisasays 3y ago
        It was the US State Department and Congress (See: McCain, et. al.) implicated in the ouster of a legitimately elected Ukrainian president in what would most reasonably be described as a violent coup ... No one in Ukraine believes this narrative. Why do you?
        deleted 3y ago
        [deleted]
      - _kbh_ 3y ago
        > Technically correct, it was the US State Department and Congress (See: McCain, et. al.) implicated in the ouster of a legitimately elected Ukrainian president in what would most reasonably be described as a violent coup with the president being far upon by far-right militia, one that might reasonably described as Neo-Nazi in nature. None of this is true, what happened in reality and not in the fever dreams of FSB, GRU and SVR agents is that there where protests when Yanukovych went back on a number of election promises and started aligning himself with Russia instead of joining the EU Like he promised he would. After that happened he was removed from his seat of power by the parliament and he fled back to his handlers in Russia.
- 65a 3y ago
  This isn't a proxy war between NATO and Russia, this is Russia invading a neighbor, and the neighbor being supported by many different countries, some of which aren't even in NATO or "the West". Framing it as NATO vs Russia is precisely what the Kremlin talking heads try to do on a daily basis. NATO is a defensive alliance and a set of shared standards. Also, Russia has no proxy in this.
  - DennisP 3y ago
    All this is true but strictly in terms of military equipment needs, it amounts to the same thing. I don't think GP meant any more than that.
  - galangalalgol 3y ago
    If you squint a bit, Russia is the proxy. China's to be specific. The outcome tested the waters a bit for how the international community might react to the invasion of a somewhat developed nation vs a developing one. It also uses up munitions and war chests of those that might get involved. And in the now seemingly inevitable case that Russia's economy and political power are severely damaged, it has a trading partner that makes plenty of food and fuel that everyone else has promised not to trade with, so the prices are cheap.
    - mschuster91 3y ago
      Agreed on the first part, but I'd say the rest isn't so important: while China does rely on food imports, it's mostly stuff like meat, rice and soybeans - nothing that Russia has in abundance.
  - LorenPechtel 3y ago
    It did not *start* as a proxy war but it *became* one when we started flooding Ukraine with weapons. So many politicians blathered on about the peace dividend but the bear was hibernating, not dead. I was repeatedly ridiculed for saying so. Fortunately, it turns out the bear rotted from within pretty badly during it's hibernation.
  - bouncycastle 3y ago
cpursley 3y ago
> NATO would have air superiority and not need as many stingers. How, exactly?
- armchairgen 3y ago
  I don't really know if NATO+allies would establish air superiority. However my guess is that they may use a combination of tactics from HALO insertions[1], long range missile strikes from land and sea, and around-the-clock bombing from stealth aircraft like the B2[2], to knock out AA batteries until the enemy can no longer adequately defend it's skies. Then jets like the F-22[3] would be used to establish command of the airspace. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-altitude_military_parachuting https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-altitude_military_parachu... [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northrop_Grumman_B-2_Spirit https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northrop_Grumman_B-2_Spirit [3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_Martin_F-22_Raptor https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_Martin_F-22_Raptor
  - cpursley 3y ago
    Do you think the 30 year old B-2s will would be able to penetrate Russian air space? They've got quite the radar array and integrated air defense.
    - armchairgen 3y ago
      Do you think that the B-2 is the latest that the U.S. has[1]? It doesn't need to be singularly successful since it's part of a collective of redundant systems[2]. Air isn't working then increase missile strikes, missiles can't attain good effect on target then increase covert operations with local insurgencies, etc. That's just some of the possible angles of attack. There's leaving out things like drones and cyber attacks that would also be employed to some effect. Eventually the enemy loses the ability to fight since it's critical points are weakened to such a point it can no longer wage an effective resistance. Another example: why attack heavily defended artillery positions when you can blow up the logistical route and starve them of rounds to attack with? [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northrop_Grumman_B-21_Raider https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northrop_Grumman_B-21_Raider [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maneuver_warfare https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maneuver_warfare
andrewflnr 3y ago
The qualifiers you raise are largely irrelevant. You only have a military because you want to be ready for war. In a war, no matter the reasons or participants, you're going to fire a lot of ammo. Probably more than you really wish. And you might hope you fire less of some particular sort, because of some other battlefield victory you plan on attaining, but you're still a fool if you absolutely depend on it, because the enemy gets a vote. And all I'm saying is, plan to be able to start the dang factories again.

semicolon_storm 3y ago

A proxy war between NATO and Russia isn’t that rare of an edge case.

greesil 3y ago
Hindsight, dude
HarryHirsch 3y ago
The proxy war started in 2014 with Euromaidan. Here is what's baffling: no army goes to war except with strategic plans. The geniuses in the Pentagon decided to push for war but omitted to make plans for armament supplies! The same mistake thankfully did Hitler in - the switch to the war economy came only in 1942 when it was clear that Stalingrad was going to fall.
- Scarblac 3y ago
  The Pentagon did not push for war at all, this is a Russian invasion.
  - HarryHirsch 3y ago
    The Pentagon should have recognized that the Eastern expansion of NATO would collide with the national security interests of Russia, and that war would be the inevitable consequence. It probably even did, the task of the High Command is to draw up and revise plans for every contingency. What went on between the Pentagon and the Secretary of State's office? Why was the military establishment with all its experience in logistics overruled? The incompetence and lack of preparedness that are on view here is staggering.
    - martin8412 3y ago
      NATO is a defensive alliance. The defensive alliance is only at odds with Russia due to the imperialist tendencies. Not to mention that Russia has had a land border with NATO since 1948.
      - sudosysgen 3y ago
        NATO is a general purpose alliance with a defensive clause amongst many and a history of involvement in offensive operations.
    - Scarblac 3y ago
      > The Pentagon should have recognized that the Eastern expansion of NATO would collide with the national security interests of Russia, and that war would be the inevitable consequence. NATO is absolutely zero threat to Russia, and Russia knows it. Finland joined and Russia shrugged, and has since even removed many troops from that border because it knows NATO will not attack. What matters is the national security interests of Ukraine. Russia is a massive threat to the national security interests of Ukraine, and Ukraine really wants to join NATO to be safe from Russia. Russia knew that if it wanted to invade and conquer Ukraine, a souvereign country, it would have to do soon because it would not be possible anymore after Ukraine joined NATO. Russian security interests, fuck off. Neither Ukraine nor NATO is a threat to Russia. Ukraine's security interests, those are very obviously threatened.
      - multjoy 3y ago
        > and has since even removed many troops from that border because it knows NATO will not attack. They've removed them because they need to avoid any possibility of a provocation. The merest hint of a wrongful look at Finland will not go well for them.
        Scarblac 3y ago
        They removed them because they're sending them all to Ukraine.
  - avgcorrection 3y ago
    This whole debate is so moralistic. What matters as far as planning is concerned is analyzing likely outcomes given your own actions. We can for the sake of the argument just take as a given that the Russian government is bloodthirsty and expansionist and wants Ukraine. Event: Euromaidan Likely long-term outcomes: ? There’s not more to it than that. No need to moralize over who did what or who is culpable. This is all about one entity (America) analyzing likely outcomes given a series of events.
    - stale2002 3y ago
      > We can for the sake of the argument just take as a given that the Russian government is bloodthirsty and expansionist and wants Ukraine. No, actually. I do not think it should have been taken for granted that Russia would be stupid enough to do this invasion. The fact that they were willing to make such insane strategic bludders is a bit of a surprise.
    - avgcorrection 3y ago
      > What matters as far as planning is concerned is analyzing likely outcomes given your own actions. Should have been: given any kind of event.
  - thegaulofthem 3y ago
    Technically correct, it was the US State Department and Congress (See: McCain, et. al.) implicated in the ouster of a legitimately elected Ukrainian president in what would most reasonably be described as a violent coup with the president being far upon by far-right militia, one that might reasonably described as Neo-Nazi in nature. Considering Us behavior when the Soviet Union installed assets on Cuba, there isn’t a whole lot of ethical ground to be found here. Just Great Power politicians playing stupid games with innocent lives.
    - lostlogin 3y ago
      The US wasn’t invading Cuba when that happened. If the US had put nukes in Ukraine and pointed them at Russia, and did so before the Crimean invasion, your comparison might be more fair.
    - calgarymicro 3y ago
      Yup, poor innocent Yanukovych was only minding his own business when the cruel protestors set upon him, he definitely wasn't ramming through draconian laws[0] that would have ended free speech and the right to protest, given the secret police expansive powers, and censored the internet. [0]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-protest_laws_in_Ukraine https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-protest_laws_in_Ukraine
    - lisasays 3y ago
      It was the US State Department and Congress (See: McCain, et. al.) implicated in the ouster of a legitimately elected Ukrainian president in what would most reasonably be described as a violent coup ... No one in Ukraine believes this narrative. Why do you?
      - deleted 3y ago
        [deleted]
    - _kbh_ 3y ago
      > Technically correct, it was the US State Department and Congress (See: McCain, et. al.) implicated in the ouster of a legitimately elected Ukrainian president in what would most reasonably be described as a violent coup with the president being far upon by far-right militia, one that might reasonably described as Neo-Nazi in nature. None of this is true, what happened in reality and not in the fever dreams of FSB, GRU and SVR agents is that there where protests when Yanukovych went back on a number of election promises and started aligning himself with Russia instead of joining the EU Like he promised he would. After that happened he was removed from his seat of power by the parliament and he fled back to his handlers in Russia.
65a 3y ago
This isn't a proxy war between NATO and Russia, this is Russia invading a neighbor, and the neighbor being supported by many different countries, some of which aren't even in NATO or "the West". Framing it as NATO vs Russia is precisely what the Kremlin talking heads try to do on a daily basis. NATO is a defensive alliance and a set of shared standards. Also, Russia has no proxy in this.
- DennisP 3y ago
  All this is true but strictly in terms of military equipment needs, it amounts to the same thing. I don't think GP meant any more than that.
- galangalalgol 3y ago
  If you squint a bit, Russia is the proxy. China's to be specific. The outcome tested the waters a bit for how the international community might react to the invasion of a somewhat developed nation vs a developing one. It also uses up munitions and war chests of those that might get involved. And in the now seemingly inevitable case that Russia's economy and political power are severely damaged, it has a trading partner that makes plenty of food and fuel that everyone else has promised not to trade with, so the prices are cheap.
  - mschuster91 3y ago
    Agreed on the first part, but I'd say the rest isn't so important: while China does rely on food imports, it's mostly stuff like meat, rice and soybeans - nothing that Russia has in abundance.
- LorenPechtel 3y ago
  It did not *start* as a proxy war but it *became* one when we started flooding Ukraine with weapons. So many politicians blathered on about the peace dividend but the bear was hibernating, not dead. I was repeatedly ridiculed for saying so. Fortunately, it turns out the bear rotted from within pretty badly during it's hibernation.
- bouncycastle 3y ago

cpursley 3y ago

> NATO would have air superiority and not need as many stingers. How, exactly?

armchairgen 3y ago
I don't really know if NATO+allies would establish air superiority. However my guess is that they may use a combination of tactics from HALO insertions[1], long range missile strikes from land and sea, and around-the-clock bombing from stealth aircraft like the B2[2], to knock out AA batteries until the enemy can no longer adequately defend it's skies. Then jets like the F-22[3] would be used to establish command of the airspace. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-altitude_military_parachuting https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-altitude_military_parachu... [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northrop_Grumman_B-2_Spirit https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northrop_Grumman_B-2_Spirit [3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_Martin_F-22_Raptor https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_Martin_F-22_Raptor
- cpursley 3y ago
  Do you think the 30 year old B-2s will would be able to penetrate Russian air space? They've got quite the radar array and integrated air defense.
  - armchairgen 3y ago
    Do you think that the B-2 is the latest that the U.S. has[1]? It doesn't need to be singularly successful since it's part of a collective of redundant systems[2]. Air isn't working then increase missile strikes, missiles can't attain good effect on target then increase covert operations with local insurgencies, etc. That's just some of the possible angles of attack. There's leaving out things like drones and cyber attacks that would also be employed to some effect. Eventually the enemy loses the ability to fight since it's critical points are weakened to such a point it can no longer wage an effective resistance. Another example: why attack heavily defended artillery positions when you can blow up the logistical route and starve them of rounds to attack with? [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northrop_Grumman_B-21_Raider https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northrop_Grumman_B-21_Raider [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maneuver_warfare https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maneuver_warfare

andrewflnr 3y ago

The qualifiers you raise are largely irrelevant. You only have a military because you want to be ready for war. In a war, no matter the reasons or participants, you're going to fire a lot of ammo. Probably more than you really wish. And you might hope you fire less of some particular sort, because of some other battlefield victory you plan on attaining, but you're still a fool if you absolutely depend on it, because the enemy gets a vote. And all I'm saying is, plan to be able to start the dang factories again.