The War in Europe

Nobody's arguing about history Percy.Putin made his move in the belief that the West was weak and wouldn't respond, that Ukraine wanted to return to Russia and that his army strutting in Moscow's Red Square would look just as glorious on a battlefield facing an opponent with modern weaponry and a will to fight.He was wrong on all counts, what plans he might have had to push further after Ukraine have evaporated. He's now in survival mode with absolutely no possibility of doing what you propose.

First you tell me what I think, now you tell me what everyone else thinks. I suggest it's safer to stick to what you think.
If causing WW3 (oops) isn't suicide, then, well, we need a new language. Aren't you the guy that hates absolutes? I'm trying to understand what you think any defence of Estonia would not entail attacking Russia. Or are you being hyper-literal again? Why are you playing around with imagining all this stuff - we're dealing with a real physical invasion of an independent democratic country using real weapons killing real people. The mind games are over it's a real war that the West is fighting by proxy - for the moment. ffs ... Putin is over. In the highly unlikely event that he somehow manages to survive politically, Russia will not survive the collapse of its economy. He'll have no resources to do anything but attempt to control his own population. As for NATO ever allowing him to walk into a NATO territory, that's Lala Land, he's exposed his hand. It's happening. It's the economy stupid.

It's really hard to discuss stuff with you if you're going to nit-pit your way through the trivia of the spelling of country names, grammatical usages and the correct forms of 111/III and 3.This is just a guess, but I reckon that in each case you understood the actual meaning. It's generally considered rude and patronising to quibble about such things when they don't detract to the substance of the article. We're not writing theses here. And you, of course, are the sole judge of whether an argument is the equivalent of 1=0?I don't suppose you could consider the possibility that you may be wrong or may have have misunderstood in that autistic way of yours? (If you actually are autistic please say and I will be far more careful with my replies. So far I have assumed a little intelligent tolerance.) I have explained this several times now. NATO has promised that an attack on anyone of it members is an attack on all of them - and you have agreed - because, of course, it's a simple fact.Just so you get the idea, lets say that the Ukraine had been a NATO member can you imagine ANY scenario where NATO would not physically retaliate by attacking Russia? (I do worry that in your literalism you will be thinking that NATO will be attacking Russia in Ukraine, which is not the same as attacking Russians in Russia? And that the former will not require the latter?) You ARE trying to distinguish between an attack on Russia and an attack on Russians! My god you're naive.The only reason Ukraine is under long range bombardment is because they haven't got control of the air. Ukraine are begging for NATO help there and NATO won't give it because they know it would immediately escalate from a prescribed local conflict into WW3.III,111.But the very first act of any direct NATO action behalf of a NATO country under attack would be to take out Russian radar and ground to air missile sites, control centres and off-shore naval assets implicated in the Russian offences - wherever they're located. That's why Putin would never put boots in a NATO country, it would be world war and suicide. We both have opinions about the future - that's fine. You're confusing geologically large, with economically large. It has the economy of Spain and it spends - from memory 11% of its GDP on arms. It's a poor, backward economy based of commodities - oil and gas - that are becoming terribly unfashionable. Sure. But he's over - unless we get careless and ... Which it the only reason this isn't over now. You bet your life it does - this is one statement that you can take quite literally.Edited by Tangle, : No reason given.

I know you think these are important distinctions but I do not. If Russia bombed Estonia it triggers Article 5 and the West will defend itself in whatever military terms are required. This would necessarily mean hitting Russia in Russia - especially if airfields and artillery or missiles where originating there. They're doing both! Well there you go. Once again, I'm confused about how you could defend against an attack from Russia without attacking Russia and Russians. It wouldn't be possible to effectively defend against Russia purely from inside the country under attack - it would necessarily spread to supply chains, ammo dumps, radar installation, anti-aircraft missile systems, airfields etc etc within contact range of the actual battlefield.

That's an excellent example of doublethink.

I really don't see the point in saying the same things many times in answer to the same issues put in slightly different tortuous ways.Any attack on a NATO country would result in NATO defending that that country using whatever force necessary to stop the attack succeeding. Obviously if the threat is existential - as it is for Ukraine - that would mean attacking Russian offensive forces and installations wherever they were sited.Isn't that just blindingly obvious?

Once an aggressor has invaded there is no difference! NATO would be defending itself against an invasion. That would require attacking the invading forces wherever they are.Can you imagine Russia bombing Estonia from Russia and NATO not attacking the airfields and missile launch sites within Russia? That's not an invasion, it's a necessary defensive reaction. I have no idea what Percy's point is. It seems to me he has no idea of modern warfare - it's been a century since battles where only fought on a localised battlefield.

er, how can the unprovoked invasion of a sovereign independent nation, not be done by an 'aggressor'?There is a very large gaping hole where understanding should fit, but I'm baffled where.

Yeh, it would entail war. 190,000 troops have invaded a sovereign, independent country, bombed its cities and displaced millions of civilians. That's war. Of course. I haven't so far put boots on Russian soil - but if that was necessary to reverse an invasion, NATO would of course do it. I've never called it invading Russia, that's just dumb, why would any democracy invade Russia? That's just stupid. I've called it attacking the invaders wherever they are to defend a NATO country that has been attacked. Now get a grip. I have at no time, anywhere said anything about conquering Russia. That's totally absurd and against everything NATO and all modern democracies stand for. Which is exactly what I am saying. Hence the understanding gap.

Rather extreem reaction to semantics..

quote:

---

Well, to put it politely, BULLFUCKING SHIT!!!

​

You are DEAD WRONG there, my friend. You even used the term "aggressor", so you know the difference.

---

I'll put it down to a cock-up.

I doubt anyone in the English speaking world - or any other world - thinks you can defend yourself against an attacker invading your country with tanks, missiles, artillery and bombs without attacking them. But if you need to leave that word unsaid - fine, I suppose.

Soz!

Ukraine attacks Russia in RussiaWar in Ukraine: Russia accuses Ukraine of attacking oil depotWar in Ukraine: Russia accuses Ukraine of attacking oil depot - BBC News

I still have no idea what your objection to what I was saying was Percy, I haven't changed anything.You seemed to be nit-picking trivia whilst missing the only point I was trying to make - that if a NATO member was invaded by Russia it would be forced to attack the Russian invading forces both on their own and in all likelihood on Russian territory too.But as you've now agreed with me, I guess it's moot.

You have no idea how grateful I am for that. An invasion by one country on another, is an attack on it.
In defending against that attack, the invaded will attack the invaders.
It's not remotely ambiguous, it's what's being played out in real time now.The invaded will attack wherever they have to inorder to defend themselves. In modern warfare that means attacking the enemy's supply lines, landing strips, launch pads, artillery that are being used to attack them wherever they happen to be, including the attackers home country if they possibly can.I'm really struggling to understand the problem here.