A few NATO countries are lobbying the rest to be bolder when it comes to sending their own soldiers to Ukraine

MicroWave@lemmy.world to World News@lemmy.world – 210 points – A few NATO countries are lobbying the rest to be bolder when it comes to sending their own soldiers to Ukraine
businessinsider.com
  • 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.
23

You are viewing a single comment
View all commentsShow the parent comment

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".

In this report, the author argues that the evidence Russia has lowered its threshold for nuclear use is far from convincing. Rather, Russia’s statements and behavior indicate more a desire to leverage its status as a nuclear power—less a lowering of the threshold than a reminder that escalation is possible and that Russia must therefore be taken seriously.
From your csis source

Next time, open the actual document.

*"There is also talk that Russia is working to develop low-yield nuclear weapons and/or modernizing its nonstrategic nuclear weapons, perhaps with the intent of creating a class of nuclear weapons less likely to draw a nuclear counterattack and are therefore more “usable.”*

That paper is from 2016, and those tactical nuclear weapons are now in service.

Also, as I've already written, I don't view flooding Ukraine with Western arms as a significant risk to the escalation ladder. That is not the case for force on force conflict with NATO, especially on Russia's doorstep. Which again, is laid out in their doctrine.

To clear, I just said to start with those links. You should definitely branch out and spend a lot more time reading up, because clearly you haven't yet.

Please, finish reading all those documents, and then read some more, and then show me all the white papers, academic articles, or think tank papers that support your position, or disprove mine.

Only time will tell, but so far the caution in escalation is serving the Russians well. And even though I don't expect NATO troops in any trenches, support roles can work. Training can also be done abroad where it is safer for all involved. There is just the logistics of moving many vs moving few.

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?