Quote:
Originally Posted by FlameOn
Putin is deliberately attacking the UK and trying to destroy NATO as he sees it as an existential threat to his rule.
|
The question is, is he deliberately attacking the UK, or a former spy. There's a difference here. Now the argument around the use of a chemical agent is a whole different ball game here, and I'd like to touch on that later. Right now, until they do something like capturing the killer, or catching a known Russian national on camera poisoning the victim, this is frankly a murder investigtion. Even if you point to it clearly being a weaponized nerve agent which points to state sponsership, and maybe I've missed it, where's the 100% link that it came from a Russian factory.
By the way, I'm on you're side here in a lot of ways.
Quote:
Originally Posted by FlameOn
The UK could not be in a worse position right now. They are severely weakened because of Brexit, which Russia also engineered, and they are isolated from the EU. With Russia's Agent Orange in power, if the US does not come to the aid of the US after invoking NATO article 5, NATO is effectively toothless. Tillerson, as much as we thought was a Russian/Trump stooge, knew this and kept the alliance going. He has been fired for it.
|
Is the UK invoking article 5? That's the question right now, but I have a feeling that it won't be invoked because it would be considered to be not only a dangerous escalation, but is what Russia did here really something that article 5 was designed for. This isn't a systematic attack on the UK.
I believe that the last time that article 5 was invoked was after 9/11 by the US.
Its designed to bring about a specific military response, open ports up, re-enforce troop dispositions, design a Rules of Engagement, define a command structure. Energize data sharing between intelligence services. Basically its the cocked pistol. All NATO Forces in Europe would pretty much have to got to increased alert, and there would be a mobilization of troops, depending on what's defined.
Also if you invoke article 5 of the NATO charter using the justification of an attack by a weapon of mass destruction, you have to realize that NATO views WMD's as one term, because NATO doesn't really have a chemical weapons or bilogical weapons stockpile, it suddenly becomes a Nuke is a germ is a spray. The usual response from NATO at that point to a attack by a chemical agent would be nuclear.
Quote:
Originally Posted by FlameOn
NATO needs to choke off all his funds somehow or create more trouble for Putin domestically as well. If the US does not respond, Putin might as well have won his little cold war 2.0 and he'll move on to reclaim the Baltic states.
|
Ok granted NATO needs to choke off funds to Russia. Right now looking at the sanctions that were imposed by the EU and the US because of the Crimea Crisis, they're fairly indepth. Russia's Oil Industry, and banking industries have all been sanctioned, a bunch of individuals have been sanctioned. The ability for Russia to gain financial loans is pretty much gone. I don't know and I'm no expert what else you can sanction. Russia financially is pretty much cut off from the world. So what's next? A navel blockade of all tanker traffic and freighter traffic too and from Russia.
I mean the only person not personally Sanctioned is Putin himself, and the EU and US decided not to do that, because it would pretty much kill any diplomatic avenues with the leadership of Russia.
Here's the other problem, and I've mentioned it before.
Lets say that article 5 is invoked. You start surging troops to Syria and to the Crimea. Maybe you're intention is to show resolve, you know, frighten the Russians into sensibility. You maybe move more naval assets into the Black Sea, or to the middle east.
Then what. The old saying is this and I'm paraphrasing because I can't find it.
But two armies gathered in a field and their leaders decided to sit down to discuss a treaty. Paranoia ran high between the two sides and the tension was great. One soldier saw a Asp and drew his sword to slay it. The other soldiers saw this and their paranoia got the best of them and the two armies fell upon each other.
You put NATO and the Russians in close quarters at a heightened level of alert and there's a good chance that things can spiral out of control.
The other problem is that and I've said this the Crimea, and the Middle East and specifically Syria are at the end of a long logistical chain. And we all know that NATO needs the US military to really threaten the Russians.
NATO isn't fighting the taliban here, or ISIS. They're fighting a fully modern Army/Navy and Airforce at the end of a short logistical train. The Russians basically have a bunch of army groups on their side of the border in Europe. NATO would have to fight through the Russian Navy, Airforce and Russian Naval aviation to re-enforce it. Now in the end, the American's and NATO will probably win if it becomes a high tech stalemate. But it will be a brutal form of warfare. Plus I don't see it staying conventional for long as NATO doesn't have the numbers to delay the Russians if this gets ugly without using nukes. I also can't see the Russian's not going Nuclear to remove American carrier power from the equation.
Militarily this is a shyty situation.
From an economic standpoint what else can you sanction?
From a PR standpoint, the Russians don't care.