"All of Vlad's forces and all of Vlad's men, are out to put Humpty together again."

[Greg Boeser]

Bringing in jihadists from foreign countries makes sense if you are fighting in a region with a large Muslim population. They can count on local religious sympathies to assist them. Sending them into a land foreign to Islam against a population that is fighting a foreign invasion might not yield the results you want. Then again, it's mercenaries dying, and not your own people, so, less outcry on the home front.

 

[vikingBerserker]

...and to be paid in rubles on top of that

 

[GrauGeist]

...and to be paid in rubles on top of that

Putler probably didn't think this one through enough - mercinaries don't usually care who they kill and if you aren't able to pay them, there will be trouble.
If I were Zelensky, I'd put the word out that I'd pay them more, in actual money even!

 

[tomo pauk]

Putlin authorized copying of foreign intellectual property (inventions, software, movies, music) in Russia:

 

[imalko]

And yet you said "As such to call it a "defensive" organisation is ridiculous..." so despite your frequent use of the word "members" it's pretty clear you were referring to NATO as an organization.

People who are on the receiving end of bombs care little if the bombs are dropped by "NATO member states" or "NATO as an organization". Speaking from experience.
However you chose to look at it, Jagdfieger's point is valid - none of aforementioned countries would have been attacked if they had possessed nuclear capability.

 

[Admiral Beez]

...and to be paid in rubles on top of that

Nothing wrong with Rubles, they're on a near record streak right now.

The ruble surges close to pre-invasion levels as Russia-Ukraine talks raise hopes for end to fighting

Controls that Russia's central bank imposed are also helping to bring the ruble back to life after it tumbled to less than a penny when the war began.

markets.businessinsider.com

Ruble becomes best-performing currency in March; soars to 83 to the dollar

The ruble appreciated to 83 to the dollar intraday on Tuesday against a record low of 139 on March 7.

www.business-standard.com

 

[JDCAVE]

More on what we have suspected all along…

https://www.nytimes.com/live/2022/03/30/world/ukraine-russia-war-news#putin-advisers-ukraine

Jim

 

[buffnut453]

People who are on the receiving end of bombs care little if the bombs are dropped by "NATO member states" or "NATO as an organization". Speaking from experience.
However you chose to look at it, Jagdfieger's point is valid - none of aforementioned countries would have been attacked if they had possessed nuclear capability.

Can't disagree with anything in the above. The semantics of whether it's NATO or a member nation acting unilaterally matter a great deal, however, to this man, General Tod Wolters, who is both Commander USEUCOM and SACEUR.

Any (western) senior military leader who's making decisions about the employment of military force will be acutely aware of the legal framework within which they are operating, the authorities that are delegated to them (and by whom), and the constraints and restraints with which they must comply (e.g. rules of engagement).

I also entirely agree that possessing nuclear weapons significantly alters the decision dynamic. I still contend that individual acts by NATO member nations do not invalidate the defensive nature of the Alliance.

 

[Admiral Beez]

I still contend that individual acts by NATO member nations do not invalidate the defensive nature of the Alliance.

I agree. There's nothing to stop Poland from sending in its army into Ukraine on Kyiv's invitation tomorrow to help Ukraine. As long as the Poles don't take a step into Russia they're good to go. Now, if Russia in retaliation invades Poland, I'm not sure the latter can now claim Article 5 support from NATO.

 

[GrauGeist]

Herein lies the problem, though - even if a NATO member acts on it's own, completely independent of NATO, such as Romania assisting Moldova, for example, Putin will still claim that it's an act of NATO aggression in spite of the facts.

This clown is literally begging for some miniscule shred of evidence to prove that NATO has been mean to Mother Russia this entire time.

 

[buffnut453]

Now this is REALLY interesting. The report is from the BBC (just so you know it's not me incorrectly depicting GCHQ as Britain's "cyber-intelligence agency"). However, we have a very senior intelligence official providing some pretty specific details of actions by Russian forces...and it's not very complimentary:

Russian troops have accidentally shot down their own aircraft and have at times refused to obey orders, according to Britain's cyber-intelligence agency, GCHQ.

In a speech to be delivered at the Australian National University on Thursday, Sir Jeremy Fleming will say it is clear that Vladimir Putin "massively misjudged" the situation in Ukraine, and "over-estimated" the capabilities of Russia's military.

"We've seen Russian soldiers – short of weapons and morale - refusing to carry out orders, sabotaging their own equipment and even accidentally shooting down their own aircraft," says the text of the speech on GCHQ's website.

Echoing comments from US and Ukrainian officials this week, Fleming will also say that Putin's advisers "are afraid to tell him the truth".

Even so, Fleming will say that "what's going on and the extent of these misjudgements must be crystal clear to the regime".

The speech also notes that GCHQ believes Russia has made a "sustained" attempt to disrupt Ukraine through cyber-attacks.

"And we've certainly seen indicators which suggest that Russia's cyber actors are looking for targets in countries that oppose their actions," he said.

 

[fubar57]

Maybe someone from this site should send Putin an invitation to join so that he can get the latest updates

 

[Thumpalumpacus]

Maybe someone from this site should send Putin an invitation to join so that he can get the latest updates

Pretty sure we're blocked in Mother Russia by now!

 

[nuuumannn]

clearly pointed out some of the factual military actions conducted by NATO members in the past 60 years.

Have those actions always been under the guise of NATO implementation? There is a difference here - NATO member states have the power to act independently of their NATO commitments. Just because they are members of NATO doesn't mean that NATO governs their every action. The same is with the UN. UN mandated action is not necessarily NATO mandated action, despite the fact that NATO member states might make up the majority of constituents within a particular mandated action. For example, the 1991 Gulf War. NATO member states the UK, USA and France (and other NATO nations) took part but it was not a NATO initiated event. The nations' forces engaged in Desert Storm were not acting on behalf of NATO.

It's easy to get the political distinctions mixed, but it should not happen, lest misrepresentation take place, which I suspect is Mark's point.

 

[nuuumannn]

However you chose to look at it, Jagdfieger's point is valid - none of aforementioned countries would have been attacked if they had possessed nuclear capability.

To a point. His is a generalisation and in this situation context is everything. I do know that the NATO Secretary General has made it specifically clear it will not act against Russia over Ukraine because of the fear of war in Europe, nuclear or otherwise. That Russia has nuclear weapons obviously changes the dynamic if they are used, but let's be clear, in these other circumstances the threat of all-out continental war was not a possible outcome, which also defines what action NATO might or might not take.

The statement that NATO's past actions are defined by whether or not the opposing state was a nuclear power is glib and doesn't sufficiently contextualise the individual circumstances.

It's not a conclusion that can be applied in this circumstance simply because it isn't the sole driving factor behind NATO's stance. That Russia has nuclear weapons obviously influences the situation because nuclear weapons are held in a different context to conventional weapons but it isn't the only consideration.

Diplomacy is a treading fine line and acting on behalf of other people's interests comes loaded with conditions.

 

[Thumpalumpacus]

To a point. His is a generalisation and in this situation context is everything. I do know that the NATO Secretary General has made it specifically clear it will not act against Russia over Ukraine because of the fear of war in Europe, nuclear or otherwise. That Russia has nuclear weapons obviously changes the dynamic if they are used, but let's be clear, in these other circumstances the threat of all-out continental war was not a possible outcome, which also defines what action NATO might or might not take.

The statement that NATO's past actions are defined by whether or not the opposing state was a nuclear power is glib and doesn't sufficiently contextualise the individual circumstances.

It's not a conclusion that can be applied in this circumstance simply because it isn't the sole driving factor behind NATO's stance. That Russia has nuclear weapons obviously influences the situation because nuclear weapons are held in a different context to conventional weapons but it isn't the only consideration.

Diplomacy is a treading fine line and acting on behalf of other people's interests comes loaded with conditions.

In the Cuban Missile Crisis, the US quarantine wasn't a NATO action. Not was either Iraq war, though both were spearheaded by the US.

I think dismissing the nuclear opposition as "glib" is inaccurate. It has been referenced by both sides currently and is offered specifically as a reason for opposing the imposition of a NATO no-fly zone ... so it matters.

 

[nuuumannn]

I think dismissing the nuclear opposition as "glib" is inaccurate.

Clearly, you are misquoting me. Re-read my statement, Thump.

 

[SaparotRob]

Bringing in jihadists from foreign countries makes sense if you are fighting in a region with a large Muslim population. They can count on local religious sympathies to assist them. Sending them into a land foreign to Islam against a population that is fighting a foreign invasion might not yield the results you want. Then again, it's mercenaries dying, and not your own people, so, less outcry on the home front.

I saw a DW interview of someone with contacts in the Russian military. Putin learned from Chechnya and Afghanistan. When the body bags started coming back and Russian mothers started protesting, regime change. By using conscripts from distant parts of Russia and not soldiers from the big cities, high casualty figures can be easily hidden. BTW this why the troops are of such low quality. Putin, the only man to defeat Russia in winter.
There were a few other points brought up (why are so many generals dead, why no one knows who is in charge, etc) and I would like to reference it but I can't find it again.

Edit: "How large is the discontent among Russia's political and security elite/ Conflict Zone. It's a DW feature.

 

[at6]

Pretty sure we're blocked in Mother Russia by now!

And those of us who are unsympathetic to the Kremlin are probably being added to an arrest list.

 

[SaparotRob]

Vlad is just deeply misunderstood. It's NATO's fault.