A few NATO countries are lobbying the rest to be bolder when it comes to sending their own soldiers to Ukraine
A few NATO countries are lobbying the rest to be bolder when it comes to sending their own soldiers to Ukraine
Some European NATO members are considering putting their own troops in Ukraine and encouraging other allies to consider it too.
- Some European NATO members are talking about putting their troops in Ukraine.
- Estonia's PM said allies shouldn't fear that troops doing training there would escalate the war.
- Some want their allies to consider similar action, saying Russia is a threat to Europe.
You're viewing a single thread.
Dear god, no...just no.
I wish the West would arm Ukraine with squadrons of 4.5 gen airframes, fully stocked and layered air defense systems, hundreds of Abrams/Leopard II's, and setup massive training facilities in bordering NATO counties.
However, putting NATO troops in theatre is such an absurd escalatory risk that I refuse to believe it's not intentionally designed to prompt a full scale military intervention.
Training troops isn't a huge escalation, nor is Estonian trainers getting blown up (bad as that would be). But if this policy moves forward, it's only a matter of time before a dozen, or more, American or British trainers get blown up, and that could very easily ignite that powder keg into something that can't be contained, because the hawks won't want it to be.
That kind of defeats the purpose of "help the Ukrainians defeat Russia in Ukraine, to prevent a wider war".
Disagree, putting troops in support and logistics will free up ukranians to do the heavy lifting. It would still be disingenuous to free up more ukranians to die if you don't properly arm them.
But, either Putin will continue waging war and restoring the good old Russia of ye old days. Or, Putin can be reasoned with and has limited goals.
Pick a lane and act like it. I'm relatively confident everyone agrees it is lane 1.. just some advocate for inaction because reasons.
But getting Ukranians help should start with driving NATO patriots to the Polish Ukranian border and protecting the skies over the western half of the country. From there, assist in training, logistics and definately medical.
Russia is not looking for escalation either. So dead NATO soldiers can easily lead to opening up other lines of weapons... Especially with f16 on the way.
You're misunderstanding where my concerns are placed, and why.
Imagine a Russian cruise missile volley hits the mess hall, or barracks, and kills 30-50 Americans.
How do you think an American administration would respond?
How will the Russians respond to the Americans response?
What rung of escalation ladder do we end up at?
What happens when another strike kills 15 UK troops the following week?
How will the UK respond?
How will the Russians respond to that?
How much further until the last rung?
Yes, we both agree that Ukraine needs support, and much more then they're getting.
But I don't think you're fully appreciating the risks associated with deploying active duty NATO troops to Ukraine.
I fully understand, and those are indeed risks. But I said in my last paragraph. I don't think Russia is looking for that kind of escalation either.
I doubt the escalation of the west will lead to troops in the trenches, but if it leads to combat sorties, closed sky over Ukraine and fully opened arsenals. That's OK right?
It's NOT just about what Russia wants...
This is the type of plan that hawks in the west would draw up because THEY want the casus belli to justify deploying combat troops.
That's my point. Those risks are intentionally high, because that's what they want.
And no, that's not okay. Russia has no chance to win a conventional conflict against the West, period.
What do you think they'll do to avoid that crushing defeat by NATO forces right on their border, and within their occupied territory?
I don't think Russia will do much else than now.
- Make threats.
- Send more of their young men to die.
Using a Nuke is not realistically an option as they would isolate themselves from China and put all countries on the fence in the position that they have to choose.
I can also imagine that sanctions will be changed to "nothing regardless of potential use".
....are you seriously claiming that a direct conflict with NATO forces on their borders, or within their occupied territories, wouldn't change Russia's strategic calculus in regards to the use of nuclear weapons?
Please, tell me what base of geopolitical knowledge, or Russian military doctrine, are you basing this on?
Because every white paper and analysis of Russian First Strike Doctrine that I've read, would seem to fly in the face of your claims. So... please put my mind at rest and show me the sources that I'm missing here.
No, off course it changes it. But so does it change for other countries if Nuclear weapons are used. And I'll leave it at that.
I also believe what you are doing is called concern trolling so I won't continue this back and forth.
Ah, so I guess that's a "no" on you providing a single source to backup your claims, or disprove mine.
Nice touch claiming that I'm "concern trolling", but it's pretty obvious who the troll is here.
What proof.. you don't have any proof either.. except for the statements by a regime that has been outright lying and bluffing this entire war. And was called on their bluf so many times we lost count.
There is no telling what a power mad dictator will do when threatened. And I agree their calculation on the use of nuclear weapons MIGHT change. But the counterweight to that is that many many more countries will isolate them and the question will be if this moves the needle in any discernible way towards actual use.
And countering my calling out your concern trolling with "no, you are" does not take away that you are here amplifying Kremlin talking points and trying to Stoke fear on the use of nuclear weapons (without actually saying nuclear) by the evil Z idiots.
Edit: jeez it seems the trolls of Lemmygrad are leaking again.
Start here:
https://www.fpri.org/article/2023/07/russias-nuclear-policy-after-ukraine/
https://www.ft.com/content/f18e6e1f-5c3d-4554-aee5-50a730b306b7
https://www.csis.org/analysis/russias-nuclear-doctrine
Pay close attention to parts that discuss strategy and doctrine regarding the use of tactical nuclear weapons.
Also, lol at your lame personal attacks. Either get educated on the topics you speak on, or just shut up.
It seems to me that all your claims are based on a mixture of your feels and "trust me bro".
Russia is killing people every day and will continue to do so. When you are afraid to help your neighbor from an aggressor, who will help you when it's your turn?
I see that putin's trolls are becoming more articulate. But anyway you are just saying that inaction is the best reaponse, and that's been proven to be bullshit.
Holy shit ...
No, I'm saying flood Ukraine with Western arms because it's worth it.
But putting in active duty NATO troops is a sure fire ticket to an uncontrollable escalation.
I have to admit though, seeing all you keyboard strategists act like force on force conflict between NATO and Russia is no big deal, makes me believe either you're all genuine idiots, or are actually pushing a coordinated message yourselves. Most likely it's the former, but that's just a guess.