How do you propose the "US & NATO" would engage in an "inevitable" war with Russia?
For NATO to get involved - Article 5 - needs to invoked, which involves one or more of NATO's member countries attacked by Russia. That's not going to happen. Putin may be evil, but he's not stupid. It would suicide for him to attack a NATO member country (the only time Article 5 has ever been invoked in the history of NATO was on 911).
Congress could declare war on Russia but that would require a majority vote from both the House & Senate - not going to happen.
President Biden could invade Russia but under the "War Powers Resolution" that would require Congressional approval - not going to happen.
OTOH, Russia's nuclear deterrence policy clearly states nuclear weapons & WMDs can used to defend any "situation critical to the national security of the Russian Federation."
Russia currently has 5580 nuclear warheads dispersed on silo & mobile ICBMs, SLBMs & heavy bombers (the US has 5748 warheads). Some of the Russian ICBMs (R-36M) carry either a 10×750 kiloton MIRV warhead or up to one single 20 megaton warhead. This makes the Atomic bombs used on Japan look like firecrackers compared to the explosive yield of a megaton warhead.
1. I don't work at the Pentagon, and I don't have the resources to map out the best way for the US and NATO countries engage in the inevitable war with Russia. But I am absolutely confident that many people in the Pentagon and elsewhere have it all planned out. I assume one way is to amass NATO troops on the Russian border (Finland, Estonia, Latvia and probably Ukraine), wait a few weeks, and then have them steamroll Russia's pathetic homeland defenses and drive into Moscow, Stalingrad and Leningrad (with suitable air support, of course). Kind of like what Prigozhin did, except on a much larger scale (like 400X).
2. I disagree that Russia needs to attack a NATO country for NATO to engage Russia.
3. I disagree that Russia/Putin will not attack a NATO country. I think they have many contingent plans to do so. Russia is an aggressive and confrontational enemy of the US and its allies.
4. I disagree Congressional approval is needed to take military action. I agree that Congress (and the President and the public) is currently hesitant to engage in military action with Russia. I hope that will not always be the case. Anyway, it's going to happen whether people now oppose it or not.
5. I'm aware of Russia's nuclear weapons. Everyone is aware of them. Russia has threatened to use them against you and your family about every week for the last two years. It would be difficult not to know that Russia has nuclear weapons.
You're incorrect on several of your points. You still don't comprehend Article 5 of the NATO alliance. NATO can not preemptively attack another nation. It's a direct violation of the treaty.
NATO was formed right after WW2 to prevent world wars not start them. After the horrors of WW2, human civilization didn't want to see any more world wars.
As I mentioned previously, the only time in NATO's history that Article 5 was invoked was 911 when the US was attacked in NYC.
Putin will not attack a NATO country...period. As I said previously, he may evil but he's far from stupid. An attack on a NATO country would invoke Article 5 & a subsequent world war. Putin doesn't want to live out the rest of his natural life in an underground bunker as the world scorches above in mutually assured destruction. Lol
And yes the President needs Congressional approval on military action taken against a foreign nation. It's in the War Powers Resolution act that I posted. It's complicated but it's there for reason (it was created & passed in 1973 after the Vietnam war).
An attack on Russia by the US will result in WW3. Russia has a defense pact with North Korea with stipulates mutual military aid & defense if either country is attack. NK has the Sino-North Korea Mutual Aide and Friendship Cooperation treaty with China stipulating that China will defend NK in the event they're attacked.
Can image that unthinkable day if the US invaded & engaged in war with Russia? Oil prices would explode, the stock market would crash, nationwide panic from coast to coast, a run on the banks, a run on food & supplies, riots & public unrest, economic collapse, martial law, etc.
*sees videos of literally a thousand russian troops surrendering inside russian territory to ukranian marines, videos of shiny new Ukranian F-16s launching long range strikes, russian bridges getting blown up inside russia, and 19% of russian oil production stopped because of ukranian drone bombing campaigns*
Jesus christ. NATO should take like 5% of its men or something and finish the job by taking moscow. Put the wounded dog down already. I think China has learned a lot by watching this conflict and won’t make a grab for Taiwain anytime soon. Even pro-russian India has acknowledged Ukraine now has some of the finest fighting legions on the planet, Indian PM Modi took the FIRST EVER indian diplomatic visit to Kyiv yesterday.
China has been moving people into Siberia for several years. Siberia stole the land from China when Russia amassed troops a long the border they want while China was fighting against British and French invaders (Second Opium War). The British accepted a treaty on the part of China ceding the stolen land to Russia (Treaty of Peking).
Many of the factories and farms in Siberia are built, run and owned by China. Over 130 million Chinese live along the border. Chinese cross the non-existent border to work as if they owned it. There is no Visa requirement to cross over. The majority of the Russians living there are decedents of labor camp prisoners (no loyalties to Moscow).
China will retake Siberia long before bothering with Taiwan. Resources, stolen land, proximity. Putin will flee to an island off Venezuela.
Ukraine's prime minister says the country's energy infrastructure has been "the target of Russian terrorists," with a massive drone and missile attack.
Russians, frustrated by having their weak country counter-invaded by Ukraine, resort to the only thing Russians do well (other than servitude and living in sh!tholes) -- terrorism.
Why do you think posting that article promotes Russia or casts Russia in any kind of good light? You're a pretty fvcked up person.
Article isn't specific about what happened, but that it occurred while engaging (presumably low flying) cruise missiles suggests the pilot flew into the ground during low altitude maneuvers.
Speculation is that Ukraine would be reserving the handful of F-16s received thus far for air defense well behind the front so as to deny the Russian propaganda victory were they to shoot down western provided aircraft. Expect that to change when Ukraine gets more planes and pilots trained but not in the near term.
In case anyone out there maintains delusions about what the war in Ukraine is really about (hint: NOT "democracy"), here is Alex Soros doing "business meetings" in Ukraine
In case anyone out there maintains delusions about what the war in Ukraine is really about (hint: NOT "democracy"), here is Alex Soros doing "business meetings" in Ukraine
The gist of Ukraine's conflicts with Russia stem from Ukraine's efforts to move toward cooperation and eventual accession to the EU and western style democratic capitalism. That has been and will continue to (so long as Russia is not able to prevent it) include investment from and trade with western partners.
Your unspoken implication is that a Ukraine controlled by Russia's oligarchs is better for US and EU national interests than is a Ukraine that is beholden to western democratic capitalist standards. Moreover you seem to imply that democratic and capitalist end goals for Ukraine are mutually exclusive when in fact they are interdependent as per the EU Ukraine Association Agreement cited above. That seems a simplistic rationalization at best.
This post was edited 3 minutes after it was posted.
In case anyone out there maintains delusions about what the war in Ukraine is really about (hint: NOT "democracy"), here is Alex Soros doing "business meetings" in Ukraine
The gist of Ukraine's conflicts with Russia stem from Ukraine's efforts to move toward cooperation and eventual accession to the EU and western style democratic capitalism. That has been and will continue to (so long as Russia is not able to prevent it) include investment from and trade with western partners.
Your unspoken implication is that a Ukraine controlled by Russia's oligarchs is better for US and EU national interests than is a Ukraine that is beholden to western democratic capitalist standards. Moreover you seem to imply that democratic and capitalist end goals for Ukraine are mutually exclusive when in fact they are interdependent as per the EU Ukraine Association Agreement cited above. That seems a simplistic rationalization at best.
I seriously doubt that poster Kobbs Hessler even understood what you typed.
In case anyone out there maintains delusions about what the war in Ukraine is really about (hint: NOT "democracy"), here is Alex Soros doing "business meetings" in Ukraine
"Ukraine’s gamble in Russia has yet to slow Moscow’s eastern assault"
"If the bold plan by Kyiv’s Gen. Oleksandr Syrsky fails, Ukraine could lose many well-trained soldiers and much of the foreign equipment it has deployed to Kursk, as well as land in its own east, where Russian troops — who far outnumber Ukraine’s — persist in their grinding assault on the key transit hub of Pokrovsk. Analysts say it is not at all clear what the end game is — or if Syrsky’s gamble will pay off."
1. I don't work at the Pentagon, and I don't have the resources to map out the best way for the US and NATO countries engage in the inevitable war with Russia. But I am absolutely confident that many people in the Pentagon and elsewhere have it all planned out. I assume one way is to amass NATO troops on the Russian border (Finland, Estonia, Latvia and probably Ukraine), wait a few weeks, and then have them steamroll Russia's pathetic homeland defenses and drive into Moscow, Stalingrad and Leningrad (with suitable air support, of course). Kind of like what Prigozhin did, except on a much larger scale (like 400X).
2. I disagree that Russia needs to attack a NATO country for NATO to engage Russia.
3. I disagree that Russia/Putin will not attack a NATO country. I think they have many contingent plans to do so. Russia is an aggressive and confrontational enemy of the US and its allies.
4. I disagree Congressional approval is needed to take military action. I agree that Congress (and the President and the public) is currently hesitant to engage in military action with Russia. I hope that will not always be the case. Anyway, it's going to happen whether people now oppose it or not.
5. I'm aware of Russia's nuclear weapons. Everyone is aware of them. Russia has threatened to use them against you and your family about every week for the last two years. It would be difficult not to know that Russia has nuclear weapons.
...Can image that unthinkable day if the US invaded & engaged in war with Russia? Oil prices would explode, the stock market would crash, nationwide panic from coast to coast, a run on the banks, a run on food & supplies, riots & public unrest, economic collapse, martial law, etc.
A video of alleged Russian asset Tim Pool has emerged, showing him blaming Ukraine for the Russian invasion and calling on the US to apologize to Russia.
I don't have access to WaPo's paywall, but the subheading talks about a "near stalemate", not Russia winning.
And to the extent this article argues that Putin has the upper hand in the conflict, they may have spoke too soon. The Saudis just announced that they are boosting production in order to claw back market share from US frackers. WTI is trading at $68 and Brent is around $71. US frackers operate at much higher efficiency than they did in 2014, the last time the Saudis tried this. That means the price point to get US frackers to go bust is going to be pretty low. I would not be surprised to see prices go under $60 in October. If the Chinese economy continues to sputter, sub $50 is possible this year. Russia will not be able to fund its war if oil prices tank. Iran may also have serious political problems if energy prices tank (not a coincidence with the Saudis getting a bit pissed off at Iran causing so much trouble in the region of late).
Ukraine demolished a major ammunitions depot deep inside Russian territory just last week. The depot also stored hundreds of Russian missiles & drones. It created a mushroom cloud & a small earthquake in the general area:
This was a HUGE blow to Putin! Look for more missile/drone strikes at key Russian military targets in forthcoming months.
I think this war is just about over for Putin. It's estimated that he's going to run out of tanks & artillery by early next year.
It's been estimated that Russia has sustained over 300,000 casualties - which is insane when you think about it (by comparison the U.S. suffered about 100,000 casualties in the Vietnam War but that was over a 19 yr period). Putin can't continue to absorb these kinds of casualties.
Support for the war is at an all-time low in Russia. And draft-age young men are fleeing the country like crazy.
I predict Putin will withdraw all of his forces out of Ukraine by year's end. He'll then go into exile in either Iran or North Korea & Russia will move on with a new leader.
