You need to consider the length of lines,. the size of grounds to be covered with the firepower you have.


Witho9ut American assets, NATO is not even worth half of what it is with the Americans.


Most militaries in NATO are not capable and ready to wage full blwon out military campaigns and wars. I would only consider the Americans, British, French (at least their legion) and Turks serious in this regard. And I mean real war, not just some political symbolic theatralism. There is a reason why the Americans like to have the Brits by their side for example, but see the Germans or Greek and others as a burden.

Thank you les green01 and Skybird for your answer to my question.

I know les green01 is correct NATO isn't NATO without USA. An attack on a European NATO member will be an attack on USA and other members.

I'm not that much into military knowhow so Skybird could very well be correct in his statement.

His statement made me think.

Does Putin have these thoughts- Europe/NATO isn't interested in a conflict when it comes to a non-member country like Ukraine ?

Are the Russian sure that an invasion of Ukraine or part of the country will only lead to harsh verbal words from EU/NATO and nothing more ?

Then there is the ordinary persons view on this subject.

I for once are in no way interest in an all out conflict with Russia.

Markus

US considering sending warships to Black Sea amid Russia-Ukraine tensions
https://edition.cnn.com/2021/04/08/p...sea/index.html


If Ukraine launches a full-scale war in Donbass, Russia will be forced to defend its citizens, says Putin’s deputy chief-of-staff
https://www.rt.com/russia/520490-zel...ss-putin-aide/

I'm not so sure Russia just arbitrarily invaded and secured Sevastopol for itself. Throughout history Crimea has been under the control of many nations. But the one country with the longest history in Crimea has for over 168 years been Russia. Even before Ukraine joined the Soviet Union Crimea, I think, belonged to Russia. It's administration was 'given' some say illegally by Khrushchev to Ukraine as a reward for joining Club Soviet.


Why the annexation took place because the Russians feel that Crimea belonged to them. After the coup d’état the was considered to have collapsed. Russia took quick action and moved back to Crimea.


This argument was formulated in the Statement of the Russian Association of Lawyers in the following way:
Still reading about the Donbass but it seems Russia and the former republics are still ironing things out since the break up of the Soviet union. But best I can tell Donbass Region has always been part of Ukraine. So instead of annexing Donabass, Russians opt to support 'separatists'. I think every effort should be made to support Ukraine here. Including Ukraine's right to choose to join NATO so they dont have to put up overt military aggression on their borders.


Considering what Russia has given the world, Totalitarian governments, Communist China and North Korea. I say we defend Ukraine.

So "Turkey informed Russia"?

I guess Russia has its own surveillance system, maybe TASS only tells it to drive a wedge between Turkey and NATO?

https://tass.com/politics/1276195

Do you think that NATO and/or EU will try to play the tough guy against Russia if Russia choose to intervene in the Ukrainian conflict ?

Markus

I think it wise to announce the pending arrival of two U.S. warships in the Black Sea. Could you imagine the response had we tried sneak them in? Which considering the width of the Straits would be near impossible to do anyway.

Unlike the Crimea, I think the Donbass region has always been a part of Ukraine. Which I think why Russia relies on those poor freedom and democracy fighters for independence from Ukraine :roll:. Tuff titties though, I'm really not worried about provoking Russia on this one. Ukraine has every right to ask for help from NATO and defend it's security and borders from Russian backed separatists or overt armed military incursion. Putin;'s claim of defending ethnic Russians isn't much of an excuse to move Russian armed forces into the Donbass. They choose to live their if they dont like it they can move.


Would have been great if we at least tried to establish better relations to see what could be done. But I think instead as we move warships into the Black Sea we're on the road to armed conflict, we must listen to our generals they know best. ;)

Then again maybe Ukraine isn't up for a fight. Things seem to be cooling.

original

https://ria.ru/20210409/donbass-1727582107.html


translation


https://translate.google.com/transla...727582107.html


--------


original


https://ria.ru/20210409/peremirie-1727618308.html


translation


https://translate.google.com/transla...727618308.html

Thank you Rockstar for your reply.

Your last post eased my heart. I hate war it doesn't do anyone any good it only gives suffer and miserables

Yes the Ukrainian government has every right to ask NATO for assistance.

Is NATO obligated to through every thing they have in their hands and rush to the war scene ?

Markus

No.


That would be a thing, if foreign nations could blackmail NATO and order it to intervene on their behalf!



Not even article 5 of the NATO treaty uses formulations so clearly formulated that it would not leave backdoors open for opting out of the loyalty to the alliance if a member gets attacked. Weasel-language.

I hope things will cool down and they will find a solution.

I have this inner fear that NATO will in some way or other assist Ukraine, if Russia does intervene in the Donbass region.

Markus

They already help. The US delivers weapons and systems since 2018, including missiles like Javelin. US military trainers are there since 2015.

But:
according to media reports from that year the Americans also learn from the Ukrainians as well, since the Ukrainians have combat experience with a conventional, highly advanced, technologically well equipped traditional military enemy being fought at close range on the ground that the Americans have not had in their recent adventures in the ME. Its russian doctrines and Russian drilled troops, no militias, rebels or underequipped part-time volunteers. And its Russian drones and precise artillery bombardment that the American trainers have been exposed to. New experiences, nothing known from Iraq or Afghanistan. This enemy can bite back - in strength. Americna trainers form that tiem said the expriences with the nUkrainians showed taiught them about a growing systematic ground combat competence deficit in the American military.

For example this Austrian polit magazine from 2015:
https://translate.google.com/transla...-lernen-konnen

True that, there are safeguards already in place and have been for years now :yep:

Article 5 provides that if a NATO Ally is the victim of an armed attack, each and every other member of the Alliance will consider this act of violence as an armed attack against all members and will take the actions it deems necessary to assist the Ally attacked.

https://www.cnn.com/2021/04/12/europ...nes/index.html

Would be pretty amazing if NATO waited until Russia launched this invasion into Ukraine and invaded Russia through Latvia.

:haha:

The German Marine could send a float into the Eastern Baltic, throwing stones from there. Our only operational free frigate needs to go lonely into the South-Eastern Pacific asking the US Navy for protection during that trip, so the float must do. :D But it will be a float packed with a perfect plan, so the Russians are warned to take measures not to laugh themselves to death.

Reading one of Skybirds comments in his German politics thread made me wonder.

Which NATO member will support an intervention in the Ukrainian conflict and who will reject any military intervention.

I know so far it's only a crisis and not a war between Ukraine and Russia.

But if there is, will it split NATO ?

Markus

it is not as simple as that.

Ukraine never existed as an independent nation prior to 1991. Its boundaries were setup for administrative convenience by the Russian Empire/Soviet Union and not because they represented real "national" boundaries.

When Ukraine became independent in 1991, 35% of the population were Russians mostly located in the eastern provinces and Crimea were they often represented 70-80% of the local population. Most of them did not want to be in a new country called "Ukraine".

Crimea, which was 80% Russian, had 2 referendums in the early 90s where they voted overwhelmingly NOT to be part of Ukraine. Ukraine ignored them and assumed direct rule from Kiev.

Ukraine also badly handled the integration. Ukrainian nationalists wanted to assimilate the Russian minority by imposing Ukrainian as the only official language and enforcing compulsory Ukrainian language training in schools. Furthermore, Ukraine did not invest any funds in the Donbas which progressively became an economically depressed region overly reliant on obsolescent heavy industries like steel plants and coal mines.

The West likes to view this as a simple case of Russian aggression, but it is more accurate to say that the events of 2013-14 triggered a civil war that had been simmering for a long time and that Russia took advantage of the situation.

It is easy to say the West should support Ukraine, but what does that mean?

1. militarily: Assuming NATO helps Ukraine to reconquer and re-occupy Crimea and the Donbas, what then? The local population will probably view NATO not as liberators, but as an occupying army. Does NATO want to be the police force that represses the local Russian population?

2. Judicially: If you spend a lot of time reading news from Ukraine, you will see many Ukrainians view many in Donbas/Crimea as "traitors", so you can assume many arrests, show trials and long prison sentences. Does NATO want to be part of and tainted by that?

3. economically: The Donbas was already depressed before the war and the region has been devastated. If NATO/Ukraine reconquers Donbas, Trillions of dollars will be required to rebuild the region. Ukraine is on the verge of bankruptcy, who do you think will be footing the bill?

No matter how you game it out, NATO/EU getting involved in the conflict is a lose/lose proposition. The only sensible course of action is to continue the present policy, NATO serves as a back stop in case Russia wants to drive deeper into western Ukraine or the Baltic states.

Other than that, Ukraine and Russia have to solve this on their own....either on the battlefield or at the negotiating table.

Keep some of them military assets in readiness for the formation of the EU army :)

??? reading Bilge_Rat answer to Rockstar made me confused.

I'm pretty sure I have, in documentary from WWII seen maps where the word Ukraine was on it.

I'm also pretty sure it was a country of its own before the red army invaded it in its effort to through German troops out of Soviet and to make a buffet zone between Germany and Soviet.

We learn as we live, so maybe I have learned something new today.

Markus