An optimist! There's one in every crowd.
-----Original Message----- From: smitra <[email protected]> To: [email protected] Sent: Mon, Feb 28, 2022 5:56 am Subject: Re: Ukraine NATO membership may not all be that relevant in practice. Russia isn't performing all that well in Ukraine. Sweden and Finland should have little difficulty in stopping a conventional Russian attack. And there is no question that a nuclear attack by Russia on any country would trigger a nuclear counterstrike. Not being part of NATO may have some benefits too. If Sweden intervenes in Ukraine in some way and Russia sees that as a act of war, then that doesn't bring NATO directly into the conflict. If the calculation is that Sweden is strong enough to resist a Russian attack, then it would be useful to have such non-NATO members like Sweden. And not being part of NATO does not mean that NATO cannot choose to intervene on behalf of such a non-NATO country. Saibal On 27-02-2022 19:17, Brent Meeker wrote: > I agree. I think the Ukranians may sustain a resistance which will > eventually cause Russia to withdraw, but that will take time. More > immediately I wonder if Finland and Sweden will want to join NATO? > > Brent > > On 2/27/2022 3:11 AM, smitra wrote: >> We should have acted weeks earlier. When it became clear that Russia >> was planning some sort of a large scale military assault, we should >> have stopped Putin right there by sending large amounts of arms >> including Patriot systems to Ukraine. Russia could then not have >> launched the military assault it is engaging in now. >> >> Russian protests should have been rebuffed by saying that Ukraine is a >> sovereign country and it is therefore allowed to request military >> assistance. Also, Russia was at the time denying it was planning to >> attack Ukraine, so why would they complain? We should then have >> engaged with Russia about NATO membership and the military aid we were >> giving. We should have made it clear to Russia that the military aid >> would come with a military deployment, this would be limited to the >> de-facto borders of Ukraine, so there would be no military action >> against the Russian and rebel controlled parts. >> >> This intervention would thus have blocked the Russian military action, >> it would have given the initiatives to the West about discussions >> about the future of Ukraine, NATO membership for Ukraine etc. We could >> have made a deal with Russia about Ukraine not becoming a NATO member >> (this wasn't in the cards anytime soon anyway). Ukraine would likely >> be more willing to voluntarily agree to not seek NATO membership if a >> practical alternative that blocks Russian aggression was already >> implemented. So, NATO would not have to change its stance about >> sovereign countries being able to seek NATO membership. >> >> But it's now too late, Russia can only be slowed down a bit. Russia >> has clearly underestimated the Ukrainian army. But it's also the case >> that Russia has engaged Ukraine in a rather cautious way compared to >> the way it was going about things in Syria and Chechnya. So, Russia >> can escalate a whole lot more. Sanctions will cause economic problems >> for Russia, but given that sanctions did little to stop Assad, even >> Maduro is still in power despite the abject poverty in that country, >> I'm not optimistic about sanctions against Russia being able to make >> much of a difference. >> >> Basically, the doctrine we need to stick to is act from a position of >> strength, hit hard when and where you can hit hard with maximum >> effect. Also to avoid engaging from a position of weakness, and >> fighting for ever smaller gains with more and more effort. We should >> now let Putin fail in Ukraine by his own mistakes and focus our >> attention to other potential flashpoints. >> >> Saibal >> >> >> >> On 27-02-2022 01:48, Bruce Kellett wrote: >>> On Sun, Feb 27, 2022 at 11:38 AM Brent Meeker <[email protected]> >>> wrote: >>> >>>> One problem is that the Russians won't know whether they are nukes >>>> or not until they explode. >>> >>> That problem can be overcome by simply telling them that the missiles >>> are not nuclear. There are channels of communication, after all. >>> >>>> I wonder how good our back channels are with the Russian military. >>>> I doubt that they are very happy with Putin. The Ukranians seem >>>> very willing to fight and I'd bet they will be a lot more motivated >>>> than a bunch of Russian conscripts. So I think if we keep them >>>> supplied they may make it too expensive in money, blood, and >>>> prestige. >>>> >>>> More worrying it what will we do when Xi starts massing troops on >>>> the mainland opposite Taiwan? We're not in so good a position to >>>> impose economic pressure on China. >>> >>> I doubt that economic sanctions will do much good in the short term >>> with Russia, either. I think you are right -- the best bet is that >>> the >>> Ukrainian resistance will wear the invaders down -- they expected a >>> short fight and easy victory, after all. Opposition is growing within >>> Russia itself. The dead bodies will be a big influence..... Russia >>> will not want another Afghanistan, or Chechnya....... >>> >>> Bruce >>> >>>> Brent >>>> >>>> On 2/26/2022 3:13 PM, Bruce Kellett wrote: >>>> >>>> On Sun, Feb 27, 2022 at 10:04 AM Brent Meeker >>>> <[email protected]> wrote: >>>> >>>> It's not a question of sympathy, but of utility. >>>> >>>> What would happen if NATO launched an all-out cruise missile assault >>>> on Moscow and Petersburg? Not nuclear, purely conventional. No >>>> "boots on the ground", but some serious rethinking needed on >>>> Russia's part. Just as the retaliatory British bombing of Berlin in >>>> WW2 caused Hitler to loose his cool and gave Britain an advantage. >>>> Of course, Putin might respond with a nuclear assault, but that >>>> would certainly render his empire plans futile. It would be a >>>> gamble, but I think the odds would be in favour of making Putin >>>> pause rather than escalating further. >>>> >>>> Bruce >>>> >>>> Brent >>>> >>>> On 2/26/2022 2:58 PM, John Clark wrote: >>>> >>>> On Sat, Feb 26, 2022 at 5:41 PM Brent Meeker <[email protected]> >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>> _ > I'm fine with seizing the money of Putin and his oligarch >>>> buddies. I'm less sanguine about just impoverishing the Russian >>>> people. _ >>>> >>>> When one country decides to make war on it's neighbor misery is the >>>> inevitable result, certainly the people of Ukraine are feeling it >>>> and I'm certain the people of Russia will too. Call me a monster if >>>> you want but at this moment I feel far less sympathy for the >>>> invading country than the country being invaded. >>> >>> -- >>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google >>> Groups "Everything List" group. >>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, >>> send >>> an email to [email protected]. >>> To view this discussion on the web visit >>> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAFxXSLS9KotZyVSzct2Dqmqm7WxuksPogwXhK4PeqR4XMAEDsg%40mail.gmail.com >>> >>> [1]. >>> >>> >>> Links: >>> ------ >>> [1] >>> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAFxXSLS9KotZyVSzct2Dqmqm7WxuksPogwXhK4PeqR4XMAEDsg%40mail.gmail.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer >> -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/a3b369704e569289ca09464545f51c49%40zonnet.nl. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/294586873.2040714.1646166417531%40mail.yahoo.com.
