Former NATO Secretary General Fogh: Full on war with Russia!

[TomWilm]

“If we do send planes, it will be to protect Ukrainian airspace, and then we have to be prepared to shoot down Russian planes. That will undeniably mean war between NATO and Russia.”, says former Danish PM and NATO Secretary General Anders Fogh Rasmussen in the Danish press about no-fly zones.

“Putin will be beaten to shreds by NATO. Once NATO moves, it is with enormous force. One has to keep in mind that the investments we make in defense are ten times as large as Putin's. The price is small compared to the price of freedom and peace that we otherwise have to pay.”, Fogh said.

According to Fogh, we have to be prepared to go there, because the future of European democracy is at stake: “I think if it is to be a deterrent, we shouldn’t rule anything out. And I belong to those who think we should keep Putin in a state of maximum uncertainty.”.

Fogh now runs a PR consulting firm, and has for years now had Ukraine as a paying customer. In Denmark he’s known as a staunch right winger, especially infamous for bringing us into the Iraq war, which quite likely helped him secure the NATO job.


- Keeping an opponent in maximum uncertainty in a conflict is, from a risk-analytical perspective, an insane and dangerous philosophy - especially when both sides have access to large arsenals of nuclear weapons. His statement testifies that Fogh Rasmussen, despite his background, is totally conflict-illiterate.

[RicROC]

1. What would really kick Putin in the face after losing a war with NATO is

if Kaliningrad (formerly Königsberg, East Prussia) is given back to Germany.

[BeyondGeography]

2. And unlike Russia, the investments we make in defense are actually spent on defense

[RKP5637]

3. My feeling in all of this is Putin is not stopping. He will continuing playing the nuke card to get

all he wants. IMO, somehow, he needs to be stopped now, because it's only going to go from really horrible to worse.

[crud]

6. I'm with you on this

I think that trying to avoid escalation won't work with Putin. NATO needs to defeat him.

[sarisataka]

4. I don't see where he calls for all out war

But that it should be on the table. I agree with his point that a no fly zone would require shooting down Russian planes which would expand the war.

Keeping your opponent uncertain is a key factor of any conflict. Unfortunately it would have been much more effective pre-invasion. One of the criticisms I have of Biden is his declaration that we would not send troops to defend Ukraine. That removed a giant question mark from Russian plans.

[RKP5637]

7. Agree, that Biden should not have publicly declared that early on, because

Putin likely saw it as a green light.

[EndlessWire]

12. I agree that a no-fly zone

would be provocative. But, President Z said that, if you can't do it for us, give us the planes and we will do it for ourselves. The issue has become more a how-do-we-get-the-planes versus should-we-shoot-down-Russian planes. This was doable, except that some people just don't want to do it.

[brush]

15. There's no question mark. Ukraine is not in NATO. NATO countries...

defend other NATO countries. Putin knows that. It's no secret. Joe Biden didn't do anything untoward with that declaration.

Putin is threatening nukes if NATO interferes.

Things might change if the Russians keep up the killing. We have to see.

[NCjack]

5. If Putin is not stopped and forced out of UKR, we will face his nuclear

war threats when he invades the next country on his list.

The time to kick him in the balls repeatedly is while his army is bogged down in mud.

[DarthDem]

8. I Agree With You

I think this is you speaking, TomWilm:

"Keeping an opponent in maximum uncertainty in a conflict is, from a risk-analytical perspective, an insane and dangerous philosophy - especially when both sides have access to large arsenals of nuclear weapons. His statement testifies that Fogh Rasmussen, despite his background, is totally conflict-illiterate."

I agree wholeheartedly with that.

Also, it's interesting to me that almost every thread on DU related to Ukraine now has a bunch of posters subscribing to the "domino theory" that if Putin is not stopped in Ukraine via direct intervention by NATO, it's an absolute inevitability (so say these posters) that another country is next.

In fact, it's far from an inevitability. It's even unlikely given the resounding lack of success that Russia has encountered in Ukraine and the crippling sanctions that have been imposed. The domino theory didn't justify the Vietnam War and doesn't hold any more viability now. I am not sure why there is a vocal contingent here repeating the same idea, using the same keywords, in virtually any Ukraine-related discussion.

[TomWilm]

10. Thanks for a friendly and peaceful comment!

In my short comment, I was leaning onto any and all of the good people studying how to stop sh*t like this from happening. In this field there are kind of two main subjects. How to stop a war from starting, which can be extremely complicated. And how to stop an ongoing war, which is a way more challenging job. Especially since the second subject includes the first - never leave your enemy in such a condition, that a war will start again.

In this conflict of Ukraine, Anders Fogh Rasmussen is the guiding hand behind, and has been for many years. Any wrong move is his work, I guess - and all the good ones might have been done in clear contradiction to his advice . None of those bad moves has been helping Ukraine to steer clear of this confrontation with their brutal neighbor - but there has been plenty of warnings.

Not to obey Putin, but to act responsible in ways to release some of the tensions with the Russian minorities. It is remarkable to see, that many of the mostly Russian speaking areas of Ukraine now actively is resisting the Russian takeover. This shows, that they in better ways should have been included and treated as allies by the Ukrainian government early on.

We had a bit of the same dynamics when Denmark was taken over by Germany in WW2. Some from the German minority greeted them, but many joined the resistance. Yes, they were from a German culture, but had been treated OK in Denmark, with full access to use their own language, also supported with German schools and such. There has for many years been given invitation from this border area of Denmark, to share their successful experiences and solutions with Ukraine, with not much luck...

And yes, there are no domino games here. Russian has now fully demonstrated, that they are just a paper tiger without the war power and stamina to overtake other big countries .Just the ability to destroy, big time.

[DarthDem]

18. Good Perspective

Thanks for the Danish take on this. It's interesting and valuable. It sounds like Mr. Rasmussen isn't your favorite, and wouldn't be mine either.

[ruet]

13. "Also, it's interesting to me that almost every thread on DU related to Ukraine...

now has a bunch of posters subscribing to the "domino theory" that if Putin is not stopped in Ukraine via direct intervention by NATO, it's an absolute inevitability (so say these posters) that another country is next."

Not unlike a bunch of posters subscribing to the "first strike theory" that if NATO intervenes it's an absolute inevitability (so say these posters) that Poot'n will order a nuclear strike.

[DarthDem]

16. I see

Actually, the most dominant argument I've seen on that score regards the false dilemma of the no-fly zone, and holds that it wouldn't actually help very much, so it's not worth the escalatory risks.

That said, and your tone aside (apologies if I misinterpreted it), I actually do feel that Mr. Putin is far less likely to use WMDs than many others apparently believe. But that doesn't mean that you should take an ineffective action that will increase the risk of a global catastrophe to any degree.

[EndlessWire]

14. Tell that to Moldova and Georgia.

We say it because we see it. It's hardly "unlikely." He came back 8 years after stealing Crimea. He issued a manifesto with China detailing his ideas of becoming one of two dominant countries ruling the world.

I think that we would see your words as "complacent" and "appeasing." It is just a disagreement over future trends, and you don't have to belittle people for feeling that way. Putin is crawling all over Ukraine, after having declared his "fear" of having NATO neighbors. And yet, he is creating immediate NATO neighbors, which will have to contend with his ambition and aggression. There is nothing that says he won't try to gain an edge at the Baltic Sea.

[DarthDem]

17. Yeah, you can miss me with the appeasement accusation

You don't know me and don't understand my positions very well if you got "appeasement" from them. This isn't a binary situation. There's complexity and nuance involved. The unprecedented Allied response to this war is remarkable. And the idea that Mr. Putin is going to be in a position to attack anyone after this misadventure has a lot of real holes.

However, looking past your rhetoric, I understand that future Russian aggression against Moldova (complete with its historical intertwinement with Russia) and Georgia is far more likely than aggression against a NATO country. The latter is approaching complete fantasy given the way this has unfolded. In any case, I would love to hear suggestions how the US and Allies can assist Moldova and Georgia now, not later.

[EndlessWire]

23. An elegant way to dismiss me

but, I can read, and I know what you said.

By telling Russia that NATO will not attack, Russia can now estimate that he actually needs less military than he needed before. Hence, he threatened Sweden and Finland, has already assaulted Moldova and Georgia, and is in the process of taking all of Ukraine. He has nothing to fear from NATO, or the opinion of the UN.

You did not differentiate NATO countries from nonNATO countries when you said Putin was not likely to continue past Ukraine. Your only argument is that his military is depleted. What makes you think that his military is depleted when he held back his air force, and has Belarus at his disposal? He also has significant propaganda forces available, when NATO has been forced repeatedly to declare that we will not fight in Ukraine. We could have implied that we would, even if we had no intentions of doing so. We didn't have to tell Putin anything. But, we did. I do see a certain advantage in the warning.

I stand behind my President. I think he is doing a good job of handling the problem. There is only so much you can do, and it takes nerves of steel to deal with it. But, I think the only thing that we are doing, other than doing a magnificent job of supplying Ukraine with tools to fight their war, is to manage the historical optic of who started this war, and who nuked first. If prayers are heard, we will not kill ourselves off.

[brush]

19. Yes. Putin's army has proven to be poorly trained and their...

their handling of logistics has been shown to be inadequate as their equipment is breaking down and running out of fuel. Also their food supply is not adequate. Putin thought taking Ukraine would be a walk in the park as it's not a part of NATO.

He's having big trouble in Ukraine and has resorted to war crimes by bombing/shelling residential areas and hospitals. From the Ukrainian resistance he's getting, he wouldn't dare take on a NATO country with all the backing they have of the other NATO members.

[DarthDem]

20. I Agree With You

I also believe that the invasion was meant to preempt Ukraine joining NATO, or timed before it could join, or both. Which suggests strongly that attacking NATO isn't in Putin's plans - as things currently stand. Caution is still warranted, and I trust President Biden and his amazing national security team and the US intelligence apparatus. They've been nothing short of amazing.

[brush]

21. Yes, our intel has predicted Putin's actions and Joe has rallied...

NATO splendidly. I'm so glad we have a rational, thinking president in the WH during this crisis, one who doesn't dismiss our intel to side with Putin.

[NQAS]

9. So. . .

I mentioned something a little less extreme last week and the comment was dismissed out of hand and the thread died. Can't happen. Full-scale war. WWIII. Nuclear option.

Now we're seeing prominent people proposing the very same thing, and in fact taking things a step further. Sure, the DUer thinks the former NATO secretary general is wrong, and that's fine. But others are beginning to consider this option, fully knowing the risks.

I'm not a military strategist, I have no military experience and no particular expertise in the region. (This is the part where people who believe I'm wrong can mutter that I'm a fucking idiot.)

But I keep coming back to Zelenskyy's comment last week about the cries of "Never Again" after WWII. You can parse those two words to distinguish between the Holocaust and the attempted German takeover of Europe. Doesn't matter. Those two words mean something. Sure, it's easy to find all sorts of twisted legal arguments against doing anything more than we - the US, NATO countries - have done so far. One treaty restricts this, another treaty limits that. In the meantime, civilians - children - are being slaughtered by Russian troops. Look at that video of the murder of the family of four by a mortar round and stay calm and collected. (https://www.nytimes.com/2022/03/09/world/europe/ukraine-family-perebyinis-kyiv.html) This is not theater. This is reality. And the time to step up is now. Yes, there is a threat that Putin will resort to nuclear weapons. There's a threat he'll do that anyway given his increasing isolation, paranoia, and delusions and the fact that he is surrounded by sycophants who reinforce his world view.

Also, as in so many areas, there can be phases. Phase one in this instance is to get the MiG and other aircraft to Ukraine now. Screw all the twisted rationales for why this is not possible. This alone might make the next step unnecessary. That next step would be to endorse and enforce a no-fly zone over Ukraine. That step would involve more direct involvement by the US. Maybe other NATO countries would be willing to participate, maybe not. But if it's only the US, so be it.

I've seen it argued that while Ukraine is an ally, it's really that much of an ally. I've seen other comments that the only reason Ukraine is getting the kind of attention it is getting is because they are, well, white people. And I agree that this bears further examination in the future. But right now we have a monomaniacal dictator for whom this is the first step in recreating a Russian empire. How far does the world allow him to go before we intervene on a greater scale than we are doing at the moment?

By the way, I may have skipped over these stories, but I don't think I've seen reporting of the millions of refugees crossing into Poland and other surrounding countries. The impact must be enormous.

[oasis]

11. K and R

[lindysalsagal]

22. We all know we want this stopped but we don't know what we don't know.

Armchair quarterbacking is fun for us because we don't have detailed, reliable, historical information.

I think we should stick to venting our frustrations, and avoid dispensing military advice.