NATO should ...

[Lurker Deluxe]

NATO should do this...

NATO should do that...

Make no mistake, it means the US should do this or that.

This conflict sucks, bad. The only power on the face of the planet that could "stop" it is the USofA.

Period.

Russia could hit Poland and or Germany with non nuke options and do untold amounts of damage and there would be nothing that could be done to stop them outside of total all out war with Russia, by the US.

Launching air strikes from either county would result in a response. That would not be pretty, and would not trigger an all or nothing response from the US.

It is fairly easy to sit in the US and preach for us to respond as a direct attack on our forces would be very very difficult. US mainland would require ICBMs, which when launched would require the US launching a direct overwhelming response. WWIII. Attaching a CSG world finally let the world know, for sure, if that carrier is a relic or the most powerful force on the planet ... no one wants to find out ... cause they really already know.

NATO exist because of the military might the US projects world wide. Calling for "NATO" response is calling for the US to do this or that, no one else can. As much as I would like to see this end, today ... I would not be willing to risk a "proportional" response from Russia on Germany/Poland.

[DanieRains]

1. NATO Has 3 Times The Weapons Of Russia Without The US

And they aren't rusted.

The troops are actually soldiers not child rapist conscripts.

No one could occupy Russia for the same reason Russia could never occupy Ukraine.

All that can be done is elimination of civilians after routing the military.

Not pretty.

[onecaliberal]

2. THIS

[relayerbob]

4. Agreed

The OP seriously underestimates what NATO can do without the US. Obviously, they are MUCH more powerful with us, but they aren't slouches, and have a little bit of experience about warfare in their home countries.

[Lurker Deluxe]

6. I do not underestimate the capability of NATO

The consequences of NATO getting involved with this conflict would not effect NATO as a whole. Russia is not about to attempt to strike US, Canada, Israel, or the UK in any kind of response.

The point is that Germany and/or Poland would. And the only way that could be stopped is by the US without going all nukey.

The calls for "something" to be done would have to involve those two countries air support capacity. Ramstein being the obvious target to Russia, and it would not need to be nukes.

If NATO was to get involved the point is that the US would not be the one in immediate danger to retaliation, Germany and Poland would be.

Would Russia win, no ... but they would respond to limit NATO's capability and that response would not be in the US.

[relayerbob]

18. WEll

I agree that Germany and Poland would be at more immediate risk than the US, but I'm not sure the rest of your argument is that cogent. No, we would not *have* to respond with nukes, even if Russia used one or two as a "demonstration". In any case, Ukraine would be hit first, as "punishment" for NATO involvement. Hitting Poland and Germany guarantees a NATO/US reponse. Clearly, that's the Russian way ... no sense in killing you, if you hold the keys to what they want ... they will hurt your loved one. Also, Israel is not a member of NATO. Read up on the "escalate to de-escalate" theory the Russians have been practicing and planning.

[Lurker Deluxe]

21. but does it

"Hitting Poland and Germany guarantees a NATO/US reponse"

If military operations were being run against Russia out of Ramstein would that make Ramstein a legal target?

My whole point is NATO is paralyzed because of this. The US, alone, is not.

My bad on Israel ... you are correct.

[relayerbob]

26. Of course it stops all of NATO and of course all NATO bases are targets

And I would not call what we are doing, paralyzed. I assure you that what we see is a bare surface of what we (US and other countries) are doing. In fact, the main reason the MiG deals fell apart, was the public disclosure of them, imo. You notice that Ukraine continues to ask for planes, but in a more general manner? That’s not an accident, nor is the massive increase in military flights in the US and Europe. Note the DOD specifically said training is not occurring in Poland or Ukraine… again not an accident. There is a lot of distraction and sleight of hand going on, coupled with some serious anti-Putin psy-ops in operation.

[Lurker Deluxe]

27. Agreed

The MiG deal fell apart because it went through Ramstein and would bring them in as "possibly" a legal target.

Which is what I mean as NATO being paralyzed, fear of reprisal against European countries close enough to be easily struck.

I believe this is the goal.

[relayerbob]

31. It had nothing to with Ramstein, it had to do with Twitter

If they had just done it a few ata time without the whole world’s press watching, it would’ve been done. And we don’t know that it hasn’t by now, because Ukraine either learned or was told that they had to keep quiet about what’s going in. Believe me, we have FAR more effective weapons than mig-29s. And no, we are not paralyzed, we are choosing not to escalate the war beyond Ukraine, that is a very narrow view of what is happening.

[uponit7771]

24. +1,

[Stuart G]

3. Is World War III desirable? ...not for me...How about you ?

[Lurker Deluxe]

8. The point

If NATO was to enter this conflict by providing "air support" and Russia bombed Ramstein with non nuke weapons, to disable the base, what would that trigger?

An all out WWIII ... doubtful as the threat of going all nukey is still there.

If Russia hit any NATO county without NATO getting involved it would trigger WWIII.

One cannot believe that Russia would simply allow NATO forces to intervene without a "proportional" response. I believe that is what is desired by Russia, NATO involvement.

[relayerbob]

20. I do agree that Russia is trying to provoke NATO

WW3 does not require going nuclear, everyone just assumes it will.

And please stop with the "going nukey", it really diminishes your statements and arguments

[Lurker Deluxe]

25. prolly

Just this seems to pop up everywhere and it always leads back to nukes,

I just do not see it going there. Vlad has a goal, I have no idea what it is ... but I doubt it involves the destruction of the world.

There is no doubt in my mind Vlad is goading NATO into doing something, I believe in order to hold Europe hostage to those same false threats to get whatever he wants.

[relayerbob]

30. He is under the mistaken belief

That getting aggressive will divide NATO. That has not occurred. NATO holds back to prevent Putin from claiming we started WW, as he wants to use that to rationalize his war. By refusing to budge and arming Ukraine, we are thwarting him at a much deeper level than we would be jumping into the conflict. He wants the USSR back, along with the satellite countries, but he knows he can’t win in a direct attack. What we are doing is guaranteeing he loses in the long run. Biden is in the horrible position of having to choose between tens of thousands of Ukraine citizens, or hundreds of thousands to millions across all of Europe, with or without nukes.

[tirebiter]

5. But volunteers can help

[yagotme]

7. If Ukraine, with a lower percentage of equipment and troops than Russia,

can pretty much hand Vlad's hat to him, then France, Poland, Germany, Britain could completely wipe the grin off his face. We probably wouldn't even need to send over more than what we already have there, just support European troops. Russian equipment hasn't exactly been able to cut the mustard, and when you decrease their mobility, you have ground troops against mechanized warfare. Not even by any standards.

[Lurker Deluxe]

11. Most certainly

Who would feel the brunt of that?

Not the US. Germany, who will not even sanction Russian fuel, would.

Immediately. Russia can hit those countries with convention weapons from within Russia ... and would do so to limit capabilities in the area.

[yagotme]

13. The only LOGICAL thing would be for Russia

to declare a cease fire, and actually REMOVE troops from Ukraine, not "relocate". Anything else will hurt Europe now, or further down the road.

[OneBlueDotS-Carolina]

9. Now if Ukraine had huge oil deposits...n/t

[ripcord]

10. Many Americans will wind up not backing NATO counties for fear of a nuclear strike nt

[Mariana]

12. Whether "many Americans" would back it is irrelevant.

I don't believe President Biden would violate the North Atlantic Treaty.

[lagomorph777]

14. NATO (including US) is already involved.

It's supplying weapons. Vlad the Imposter is too weak to stop us.

I'm not proposing we fire the weapons, or enter Ukraine.

I do propose we send more and bigger weapons: antimissile systems, artillery that Ukraine could knock out bases inside Russia with; high altitude anti-aircraft weapons.

[Lurker Deluxe]

16. While I agree with this, it is very hard to do

The weapons we are supplying now are very hard to counter, mobility, quick strike and move, being key.

Attempting to set up and operate intricate anti missile systems and artillery is not so easy and requires support. If the artillery can hit Russia they will destroy it, same with anti missile systems. Anti aircraft systems are not a high priority as they are using old junk.

The main damage is coming from within Russia and that is very hard to hit, by anyone.

My main point is to those who are calling for direct NATO involvement are, seeming to me, falling into a trap that would see Russia hitting strategic targets in European counties to disable capacity. I do not believe this would trigger Art 5 as it would be "proportional" by Russia.

[lagomorph777]

17. Zelenskyy does seem to know what he's doing (or has generals advising him well).

I believe we should give more weight to his specific requests - work with him to enable whatever is practical.

I don't disagree with your points about small and stealthy vs big and vulnerable - but those weapons could really change the balance if that can be sorted.

[EndlessWire]

15. I disagree that only the US can take on Russia.

A combined NATO response (that's what it is all about) would and could annihilate Russia. NATO has grimly stood by and watched the atrocities that Russia is committing in Ukraine, with the declaration that even one toenail against a NATO country will result in a response against Russia. So, if Russia "accidentally" shoots a destructive missile into a NATO country, they can look forward to a defense of that country. And, it won't be pretty.

And, yeah, it would be WW3. Does the Russian civilian population want that, or will they finally rise up against Putin? When their own infrastructure starts to be destroyed, they might have something to say. Otherwise, they are as far away from the fighting as any far away country who abstained today, even though it is happening to their cousins right next door.

The US is always the baddie, but in this context, Russia is the aggressor, and Russia alone decides if it wants WW3 or not. No one else does. Russia wants the seacoast, control of the Azov and probably the Black Sea now, and it doesn't care how it gets it, or what cost everyone else pays.

If nukes are used, WW3 will be over in 30 minutes, maybe less. No one wins. But, I guarantee you, Russia will not survive intact. Their dream to control the world will be over.

This is why we cannot have nice things. Meanwhile, the ice caps are melting, we don't understand why, and we are going to face terrible danger from the planet itself.

Ukraine,

[Lurker Deluxe]

19. I disagree

Maybe I am not getting this across well.

The US is the only one that could stop this, could ... , not for certain and it would be one helluva gamble, without it bringing on the end of the world.

If NATO gets involved a NATO country would be an immediate target, Germany most likely. Russia could strike without using nukes and it could be deemed "proportional". Then there is a crazy choice ...

If the US destroyed all forward military targets in Russia that are doing all the damage in Ukraine, alone, it would still allow article 5 to remain in place. Strike a NATO country, get a NATO response.

Otherwise ... back up or take on the US. Impossible without bringing on the end of the world as we know it and the certain complete destruction of Russia.

We, the US, are the only ones who could even fathom this type of action. Just as Russia is the only one who would even fathom attacking another country with the goal of conquest in front of the whole world and even expect a limited response. Well ... maybe China who is certainly watching.

Could NATO take on Russia ... without a doubt. Europe would feel the pain of that action before victory. Would Russia attempt to counter the US? Doubtful, if so, it would be suicide and Vlad knows it.

Ballsy ... yea, but the only option that does not put Europe in direct line of fire. No NATO involvement, US involvement, no troops, direct limited military strikes against military targets striking Ukraine.

[Emile]

22. I have total trust in President Biden and his approach to fighting this war.

[sarisataka]

23. Don't be too sure about the US mainland

Russia still has five operational Oscar class and three Yasen class SSGNs.

While their primary mission is to hunt carriers the could be used to put a couple hundred cruise missiles into CONUS

[Torchlight]

28. I figure most of us will hold opinions one way or the other

My only distinct impression is that it's an inevitable waste of blood and I hope it ends sooner rather than later. Don't know how to do that. I doubt too many people do, and ain't none of 'em around here.

And though I won't volunteer for the fire department or understand its physics and chemistry, I'll hold an opinion about fire too- it's still hot and boils my water regardless.

[Lurker Deluxe]

29. Before I get accused

Of running away from a thread ...

My day is winding down and I am going to have a cold one.

*waves