Russia is running out of options for blackmail after their oil debacle that backfired pretty significantly... but grain exports is one that simply cannot be impeded due to world food supply implications and the one that Russia is not about to give up on.
They have already purposely attacked a grey area within hours of the joint Turkey / UN / Ukraine announcement and attacked ships involved with the grain deal (but not part of the convoy). Putin is clearly testing the waters and has announced the movement of ships as unacceptable.
NATO will get dragged into this eventually no matter how cautious it has been, it's just a matter of time.
Putin is goading a reaction to finally get his real NATO war, but one that he can claim was provoked by NATO itself and has already claimed that this route was used as part of 'terrorist strikes' on Crimea. Clear signs of desperation are emerging after the attack on Black Sea ships that was supposed to be well defended.
Still a lot must be said of Erdogan giving the middle finger to Putin. An enemy of an enemy is my friend has never been more true.
Is anybody credible saying this right now? I'm still hoping NATO doesn't get dragged into this and I can't imagine for the life of me why Putin would want that. He can't handle Ukraine. He certainly - and obviously - can't handle NATO. Just wondering where you're getting this from.
No. There's no reason why NATO would be "dragged into it" short of an open and deliberate attack on a NATO country, which isn't going to happen.
__________________ "The great promise of the Internet was that more information would automatically yield better decisions. The great disappointment is that more information actually yields more possibilities to confirm what you already believed anyway." - Brian Eno
NATO is already in it. All due respect to Ukraine who have shown incredible skill and resolve to fight back Russia, I think Russia would have won months ago if NATO wasn't supplying equipment, weapons, and expertise. From Russia's perspective, I don't think they are wrong in thinking that they are already fighting a proxy war against NATO. If Putin becomes desperate enough, I don't think a direct attack is out of the question, likely in the form of a failed false-flag attack, or an attack in a disputed grey area.
The purpose of the attack would be to broaden the war, open up additional fronts, and test the unity of the alliance. If Russia feels like they are going to lose in Ukraine with no territorial gains, they could gamble that by raising the stakes, the West might be enticed to bend so at least Russia doesn't leave completely empty handed. I really do think it is all or nothing for Putin, so if he is going to lose, he might decide to make it a lose-lose situation for everyone. It would be a complete last ditch effort, but I think it is plausible.
__________________
"A pessimist thinks things can't get any worse. An optimist knows they can."
The purpose of the attack would be to broaden the war, open up additional fronts, and test the unity of the alliance. If Russia feels like they are going to lose in Ukraine with no territorial gains, they could gamble that by raising the stakes, the West might be enticed to bend so at least Russia doesn't leave completely empty handed.
I'm not an expert on this conflict by any stretch of the imagination but this makes no sense to me whatsoever. Why would you WANT to open up additional fronts or broaden the war, when you're having trouble with the fronts that are already open? How does "raising the stakes" lead to the territorial gains they want to achieve in Ukraine? The West has basically no control over what Ukraine gives up to achieve peace, except by applying pressure via the withdrawal of aid and weapons. And if Russia tried "opening up new fronts", support in the West would obviously be largely in favour of stepping UP the supply of aid and weapons, not backing off.
__________________ "The great promise of the Internet was that more information would automatically yield better decisions. The great disappointment is that more information actually yields more possibilities to confirm what you already believed anyway." - Brian Eno
The Following User Says Thank You to CorsiHockeyLeague For This Useful Post:
NATO is already in it. All due respect to Ukraine who have shown incredible skill and resolve to fight back Russia, I think Russia would have won months ago if NATO wasn't supplying equipment, weapons, and expertise. From Russia's perspective, I don't think they are wrong in thinking that they are already fighting a proxy war against NATO. If Putin becomes desperate enough, I don't think a direct attack is out of the question, likely in the form of a failed false-flag attack, or an attack in a disputed grey area.
The purpose of the attack would be to broaden the war, open up additional fronts, and test the unity of the alliance. If Russia feels like they are going to lose in Ukraine with no territorial gains, they could gamble that by raising the stakes, the West might be enticed to bend so at least Russia doesn't leave completely empty handed. I really do think it is all or nothing for Putin, so if he is going to lose, he might decide to make it a lose-lose situation for everyone. It would be a complete last ditch effort, but I think it is plausible.
Attacking NATO doesn't help Russia in the slightest. Even if the NATO response is tepid, it's still going to damage an already weak Russian military. If they want to escalate to get NATO to stand down, it'll be by using a tactical nuclear weapon on Ukraine. But even that has virtually no chance of success and creates the very real risk that China and India turn on Russia.
If I had to guess what Putin's long-term plan is, it would be to hold on and hope that western economies start to enter recession, at which point public support for funding Ukraine so heavily might dissipate. And he's also likely hoping that the US election will temper support for Ukraine. The new right is no longer full of neocon war hawks, so when the Republicans (likely) win control of both legislative branches, who knows what might happen to the long-term support for Ukraine. And while Europe is going OK for gas this winter because they were able to fill up while Russia was still sending it, that might not be the case next winter.
Is anybody credible saying this right now? I'm still hoping NATO doesn't get dragged into this and I can't imagine for the life of me why Putin would want that. He can't handle Ukraine. He certainly - and obviously - can't handle NATO. Just wondering where you're getting this from.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sliver
I know. Just wanted to hear Firebot try to justify more of his nonsense.
Plausible current NATO involvement scenarios.
Russia attacks a convoy ship now under direct Turkey (NATO) supervision on the pretense it was a Ukrainian mine and blames it on Ukraine. Collateral damage to a Turkey ship. Triggers Article 5
Russia uses a dirty bomb under the pretense that Ukraine is responsible, which has been threatened on a number of occasions. Triggers Article 5.
Russia invades via Belarus in a new front on the west side to cut off supply routes in very dangerous proximity to Poland. Very strong chance of accidentally triggering article 5 with this plan should it go ahead.
Any of these 3 could be current plausible catalysts for NATO involvement and have been directly warned as crossing the line.
Russia clearly isn't winning a war here in Ukraine, let alone one against NATO and so far has balked and blinked at each threat it did which could involve NATO. He has clearly showed he has at this point no intention of actually getting involved with NATO.
Does that matter if the moment Putin believes he is defeated he knows he will put out to pasture? That is if he can even rationalize he is defeated? He will cling to power as long as possible, and if that means as a last resort triggering NATO to intervene (think whatever scenario you want) he has the pretense for full on mobilization (he has already done partial mobilization, an unfathomable and irrational act months ago).
NATO has been clear and rational in wanting to avoid escalation as best as possible, while Russia wants to eradicate Ukraine and it's existence and is well past any arguable sense of rationality in terms of cost.
Russia invading Ukraine was considered a bluff back in February and that Putin invading is hysterical nonsense. So you can claim everything you don't like to hear as nonsense if you want, but this war has long past making sense and you have to face the situation as it occurs and escalates.
Back in February and March we were talking about sending helmets and vests to Ukraine, currently Ukraine pilots are directly training for F-16 use that is being provided by the US with Turkey ships escorting convoys.
And you still are in denial that this can't escalate further then what has already occured. Ok.
Last edited by Firebot; 10-31-2022 at 03:51 PM.
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Firebot For This Useful Post:
Russia attacks a convoy ship now under direct Turkey (NATO) supervision on the pretense it was a Ukrainian mine and blames it on Ukraine. Collateral damage to a Turkey ship. Triggers Article 5
Russia uses a dirty bomb under the pretense that Ukraine is responsible, which has been threatened on a number of occasions. Triggers Article 5.
Russia invades via Belarus in a new front on the west side to cut off supply routes in very dangerous proximity to Poland. Very strong chance of accidentally triggering article 5 with this plan should it go ahead.
None of those things would trigger Article 5.
The Following User Says Thank You to opendoor For This Useful Post:
Attacking NATO doesn't help Russia in the slightest.
Invading Ukraine didn't help Russia either, yet here we are.
I simply do not see any exit strategy here anymore, without Putin living even though he may still think there are options, and Putin has shown no signs of stopping even when his military is depleted. This is why the situation is more dangerous then ever.
Russia attacks a convoy ship now under direct Turkey (NATO) supervision on the pretense it was a Ukrainian mine and blames it on Ukraine. Collateral damage to a Turkey ship. Triggers Article 5
Russia uses a dirty bomb under the pretense that Ukraine is responsible, which has been threatened on a number of occasions. Triggers Article 5.
Russia invades via Belarus in a new front on the west side to cut off supply routes in very dangerous proximity to Poland. Very strong chance of accidentally triggering article 5 with this plan should it go ahead.
Any of these 3 could be current plausible catalysts for NATO involvement and have been directly warned as crossing the line.
Russia clearly isn't winning a war here in Ukraine, let alone one against NATO and so far has balked and blinked at each threat it did which could involve NATO. He has clearly showed he has at this point no intention of actually getting involved with NATO.
Does that matter if the moment Putin believes he is defeated he knows he will put out to pasture? That is if he can even rationalize he is defeated? He will cling to power as long as possible, and if that means as a last resort triggering NATO to intervene (think whatever scenario you want) he has the pretense for full on mobilization (he has already done partial mobilization, an unfathomable and irrational act months ago).
NATO has been clear and rational in wanting to avoid escalation as best as possible, while Russia wants to eradicate Ukraine and it's existence and is well past any arguable sense of rationality in terms of cost.
Russia invading Ukraine was considered a bluff back in February and that Putin invading is hysterical nonsense. So you can claim everything you don't like to hear as nonsense if you want, but this war has long past making sense and you have to face the situation as it occurs and escalates.
Back in February and March we were talking about sending helmets and vests to Ukraine, currently Ukraine pilots are directly training for F-16 use that is being provided by the US with Turkey ships escorting convoys.
And you still are in denial that this can't escalate further then what has already occured. Ok.
It seems to me you are confidently incorrect on everything you type.
Maybe if you supported some of your assertions with links to expert analysis it might lend some credibility or at least offer the opportunity for the skeptics among us to look into where you're getting your opinions from.
Do you have support for any of your claims/assertions/points, or is this just you pontificating here? Like, I'm happy to take you seriously, but I don't know if it's your tone or just the implausibility if the conclusions you draw from your made-up scenarios, but when I read your posts I'm always thinking, wtf is this guy talking about?
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Sliver For This Useful Post:
Invading Ukraine didn't help Russia either, yet here we are.
I simply do not see any exit strategy here anymore, without Putin living even though he may still think there are options, and Putin has shown no signs of stopping even when his military is depleted. This is why the situation is more dangerous then ever.
So if you don't see the exit strategy, what - on god's green earth - makes you think drawing NATO directly into the fray will be his exit plan? How the fata is that an exit? That's a new war that guarantees a Russian loss.
It's like saying 1 + 2 = elephant.
I'm with you on trying to figure out how Putin is going to get out of this mess. We're on the same page. Then you seem to skip, like, eleven steps in logic and conclude Putin will attack NATO. wut? Can you shed some light on how you come to that conclusion for us? I'm not getting it.
Russia attacks a convoy ship now under direct Turkey (NATO) supervision on the pretense it was a Ukrainian mine and blames it on Ukraine. Collateral damage to a Turkey ship. Triggers Article 5
Russia uses a dirty bomb under the pretense that Ukraine is responsible, which has been threatened on a number of occasions. Triggers Article 5.
Russia invades via Belarus in a new front on the west side to cut off supply routes in very dangerous proximity to Poland. Very strong chance of accidentally triggering article 5 with this plan should it go ahead.
Any of these 3 could be current plausible catalysts for NATO involvement and have been directly warned as crossing the line.
Russia clearly isn't winning a war here in Ukraine, let alone one against NATO and so far has balked and blinked at each threat it did which could involve NATO. He has clearly showed he has at this point no intention of actually getting involved with NATO.
Does that matter if the moment Putin believes he is defeated he knows he will put out to pasture? That is if he can even rationalize he is defeated? He will cling to power as long as possible, and if that means as a last resort triggering NATO to intervene (think whatever scenario you want) he has the pretense for full on mobilization (he has already done partial mobilization, an unfathomable and irrational act months ago).
NATO has been clear and rational in wanting to avoid escalation as best as possible, while Russia wants to eradicate Ukraine and it's existence and is well past any arguable sense of rationality in terms of cost.
Russia invading Ukraine was considered a bluff back in February and that Putin invading is hysterical nonsense. So you can claim everything you don't like to hear as nonsense if you want, but this war has long past making sense and you have to face the situation as it occurs and escalates.
Back in February and March we were talking about sending helmets and vests to Ukraine, currently Ukraine pilots are directly training for F-16 use that is being provided by the US with Turkey ships escorting convoys.
And you still are in denial that this can't escalate further then what has already occured. Ok.
And WTF is with this? Please stop putting moronic words into my mouth. Of course it can get worse. What makes you think I don't think it can get worse?
I'm not an expert on this conflict by any stretch of the imagination but this makes no sense to me whatsoever. Why would you WANT to open up additional fronts or broaden the war, when you're having trouble with the fronts that are already open? How does "raising the stakes" lead to the territorial gains they want to achieve in Ukraine? The West has basically no control over what Ukraine gives up to achieve peace, except by applying pressure via the withdrawal of aid and weapons. And if Russia tried "opening up new fronts", support in the West would obviously be largely in favour of stepping UP the supply of aid and weapons, not backing off.
Opening new fronts has possible advantages for Russia, but it also doesn't mean only fronts right on Russia's borders or even in Europe. If Russia could manage to disrupt world order enough though economic and food security sabotage to force NATO, or even just the Americans, to have to focus elsewhere, it could buy them enough time to grab as much land as possible in Ukraine before suing for peace. If Russia successfully pulls NATO directly into a fight, the war won't stay just in Europe. If global food security, particularly in the Middle East, leads to unrest, NATO will have to allot resources there. The point would not be fighting NATO, but capitalizing on the ensuing chaos that would occur.
Russia has a long history of forsaking their own people. If there is one thing they can do better than anyone is take a pounding. They can lose every battle and not lose the war. I know it was a long time ago now, but look at how they rope-a-doped the Nazis in WW2. They can lose a lot and just wait for the other side to run out of steam, and they have no problem sacrificing millions of their own people to do it.
I'm not saying it's a wise move for them to escalate, but I could see why they might do it to put their resiliency up against NATOs resolve. There is no doubt that NATO is militarily stronger, but I have my doubts that the majority of NATO countries are willing to sacrifice as much as Russia if the war was to get bigger than just Ukraine.
__________________
"A pessimist thinks things can't get any worse. An optimist knows they can."
Last edited by FlamesAddiction; 10-31-2022 at 04:25 PM.
Invading Ukraine didn't help Russia either, yet here we are.
But they thought they could take the country over in a short period of time, which while optimistic, wasn't completely implausible. Most western observers thought that Ukraine wouldn't hold on too long. That's very different than attacking the strongest military in the world.
Quote:
I simply do not see any exit strategy here anymore, without Putin living even though he may still think there are options, and Putin has shown no signs of stopping even when his military is depleted. This is why the situation is more dangerous then ever.
I don't think there's any real evidence that Russia is going to see a revolution if they negotiate an end to the war with basically no gains. Despots lose wars all the time while maintaining power.
The Following User Says Thank You to opendoor For This Useful Post:
Doesn't get any painfully more clear then from Jens Stoltenberg himself and the Pentagon. It's made pretty explicit that any use of nuclear material including dirty bombs would be crossing the red line.
As for the grain convoy, prior to today, it would not trigger article 5 in itself though likely to get what saw today occurring with NATO or select countries enforcing the safe passage. With direct Turkey escorts in the presence of convoy ships, an attack can definitely trigger article 5.
On the attack in the west which can trigger a major escalation, NATO is very well aware of troop movements. New troops have been recently deployed as first responders as a shot of force and to meet any escalation in the west of Ukraine.
We are talking of scenarios where NATO would get involved that Sliver isn't willing or capable to comprehend. These are legitimate and very plausible scenarios.
If Russia attacked a NATO country direct like Latvia out of nowhere that is an immediate response, but that is unlikely going to happen in this way and I have never spoken of such.
__________________ "The great promise of the Internet was that more information would automatically yield better decisions. The great disappointment is that more information actually yields more possibilities to confirm what you already believed anyway." - Brian Eno
The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to CorsiHockeyLeague For This Useful Post:
I see two possible outs from Putin's protective where he doesn't end up dead himself:
1) withdraw because "all of NATO" is involved and he can maintain power because it's not his fault that Russia is being picked on by so many countries. He's used the Spector of NATO to scare his populace and maintain power for years
2) throw men into the meat grinder until the money they spent on Republicans takes the Congressional purse strings and stops funding Ukraine so he can maybe get further.
I don't see 1) happening because Putin isn't that stupid to think that'll just end at Ukraine's borders. And 2) won't really work because Europe is now annoying they'll need to step up support and stop relying on the Americans for all the support. By 2023 there'll be more European support
I see two possible outs from Putin's protective where he doesn't end up dead himself:
1) withdraw because "all of NATO" is involved and he can maintain power because it's not his fault that Russia is being picked on by so many countries. He's used the Spector of NATO to scare his populace and maintain power for years
2) throw men into the meat grinder until the money they spent on Republicans takes the Congressional purse strings and stops funding Ukraine so he can maybe get further.
I would have thought the most likely outcome is that a peace deal is struck that includes some relatively minor territorial / mock election concessions that Ukraine is willing to stomach that Putin can get the propaganda machine to spin as "mission accomplished" while also allowing Ukraine to have, if not NATO membership, some arrangement that provides the Ukrainians enough comfort that hostilities won't be renewed - i.e. some sort of mutual defense pact that serves the same purpose in deterring at least military action on this sort of scale, and a whole bunch of money.
But again, not any sort of expert obviously - that's just what seems to make sense.
__________________ "The great promise of the Internet was that more information would automatically yield better decisions. The great disappointment is that more information actually yields more possibilities to confirm what you already believed anyway." - Brian Eno
I'm not so sure Ukraine will give up any territory. They're emboldened because they're winning and the stakes are higher now as they've all lost friends and family to Russia. They also know what Russia has done to the Ukrainians I'm the territory they've taken. I could be wrong, but I don't think the man who tells the US "I don't want a ride, I want a gun" when Russia invaded will give up now.
