It can’t be both ways. If NATO has already entered the war, he’s supposed to have nuked us. So he must be bluffing about the nukes.
The nuclear threat is the only real concern now. It is clear that NATO countries have absolutely nothing to fear from Russia’s conventional military capabilities, aside from the nuclear threat that accompanies them.
The nuclear threat is the only real concern now. It is clear that NATO countries have absolutely nothing to fear from Russia’s conventional military capabilities, aside from the nuclear threat that accompanies them.
Exactly. Which is why the US are really trying hard to avoid this. There is no way Russia can fight a conventional war with NATO. And that is why Putin is playing the nuclear card.
NATO has not entered the war so we are not yet in a military WW3 scenario or most likely we would not be writing anything here anymore. There is an economical world war going on against Russia however. That is also clear.
If Putin was bluffing or not is irrelevant as nobody can afford to find out. Never before has the nuclear deterrent been put to a more close test. Russia would loose any conventional war within days in this situation. So they would be forced to go nuclear if Nato were to engage them, particularly on their own turf. Hence NATO so far wisely has decided not to risk this.
I guess I see the Chinese angle differently. This is (imo) an amazing opportunity for China. In six months Russia will have no civil aviation and no functioning cars. Their electronic industry won’t be in great shape either. And Europe is weaning itself off Russian oil and gas as fast as it possibly can.
So who is left to fill all these gaps? China of course. Russia will have nowhere else to turn, either to buy or sell. China has spent the last decade essentially buying countries, especially in Africa, for their resources. Same principle as the British Empire, except done (superficially at least) nicely instead of by military force.
And now Russia becomes a wholly owned subsidiary of China. How good can it get, viewed from Beijing? Sure a few 100,000 Russian and Ukranians die, but viewed from Beijing the Europeans have been massacring each other for centuries, so what’s new?
And as a bonus, they get some intelligence about how a Taiwan takeover would go – not exactly welcome news, but all intelligence is good.
And as a bonus, they get some intelligence about how a Taiwan takeover would go – not exactly welcome news, but all intelligence is good.
In particular as this one would present a deterrent for China more than anything. China has no wish to give up all trade with the US and Europe for Taiwan, not even temporarily.
The question however is how long Europe can keep.its position after the conflict dies down. I would not be surprised if they cave in pretty quickly once their own population starts to rebellion because of fuel prices or other inflation.
The CubCrafters European HQ is near the Ukraine border and are involved in the relief effort.
https://www.gofundme.com/f/cubcrafters-ukraine-refugee-relief
I saw this today on Flightradar24, I wonder who you need to be or know to be the only (visible) aircraft that is airborne in Belarus 
ABSD-reg does not match ACFT-reg on picture, is that the norm for GA aircraft operating in grass strips near Minsk?
https://bywings.by/
They have a whole fleet of these. Looks like a school (the only word I can read is PPL).
Graham wrote:
It is clear that NATO countries have absolutely nothing to fear from Russia’s conventional military capabilities,
Russia wouldn’t win, but they sure would kill a whole lot of people including civilians. There’s a lot to fear from Russia, simply because they got an insane amount of weapons, and are not afraid of using them. Western strategy is:
A war with Russia fails on both accounts. It cannot be won due to nuclear weapons, and if nuclear weapons are out of the picture, the risk would be unmanageable. Afghanistan failed on the second one. The western forces weren’t willing to take the risk needed for success. The Ukrainians are way beyond thinking about risk. They are fighting for their lives, their country and each other. For them it’s existential. They are a cornered lion protecting her cubs from a pack of wolves. NATO forces doesn’t fight like that, no one in their right mind would willingly put themselves in such a situation. While no one is impressed with the Russian forces, I think it’s safe to say that NATO forces would not have done better in a similar situation. We would see a whole different level of organisation, but point 2 would prevent them from doing what it takes.
If Russia should attack NATO, that’s another thing. Russia probably never will, because then both points would be rendered obsolete. What western forces are really good at, is large and perfectly organized aerial attacks with pinpoint accuracy. In Ukraine, a few squadrons of F-35s would in a matter of days have decimated the Russians to the point where they had to give up. That wouldn’t be an attack on Russia, but Putin is perhaps not likely to agree on that.
@LeSving I agree about the F-35s but on your other point I’m not sure motivation counts for everything.
It’s not unimportant, but I doubt it counts for everything. Most NATO forces will be streets ahead in terms of organisation, training, equipment, professionalism and morale. Morale doesn’t just come from motivation, it comes from knowing that you’re the superior force (underpinned by the things I just mentioned) and are going to win.
For an example see the south Atlantic in 1982. On one side you had great national pride in righting a perceived historic wrong and enormous enthusiasm for the endeavour. But on the other side you had better kit and very well-trained professionals. The result was about as one-sided as its possible to get.
If ‘we’ became directly involved then I believe it wouldn’t take more than a relatively small force of UK/US armour and infantry, plus the usual air support, to clear the Russians out of Ukraine.
