So where does NATO expansion fit into meeting the net zero targets planned by COP26?
After all, there are instrinsic ties between the arms, aerospace and fossil fuel industries...
so much so that the US military (i.e. just one of NATO's member states) is the world's #1 individual polluter: https://earth.org/us-military-pollution/
The only good thing to come out of any of this so far is the arms industry is apparently now becoming a charity case...
the not so good thing is that despite vast sums of taxpayers money already going towards the arms trade, people seem to be more than happy to splash the cash for killing machines that perpetuate conflict
Still, good for the shareholders I suppose...
So where does NATO expansion fit into meeting the net zero targets planned by COP26?
take it up with Putin
he chose this path and has precipitated this new arms race
A positive to hopefully come from it all is that we will see renewed urgency to shift to renewables
A positive to hopefully come from it all is that we will see renewed urgency to shift to renewables
There is that, but if Putin doesn't manage to sell all that surplus oil and gas production to countries that don't give a £$%@ about what Russia are doing, I am concerned he'll just start to shout louder, blame the USA/UK/NATO/Europe even more, get really irrational and press the button as he shouts a huge £$%@ you world, this'll learn ya...
The argument that joining Nato is a “provocation” or and “escalation” is just utter horseshit. It’s more of this “good people on both sides” **** ery – you can’t cite people’s desire to defend themselves from a serial invader of neighboring countries, as an escalation/provocation for that invasion. Get in the sea.
This is the part I'm trying to understand the counter-argument for. In my liberal Western head, admittedly without having done a lot of historical research, I thought NATO was a kind of defensive pact, a way of uniting to collectively defend any single territory in case it was attacked.
How is this seen as "provocation" or "escalation"? Does Putin view NATO as a Western Empire gradually enlarging and threatening to encroach on Soviet (yes, not Russian) turf? Is that the "threat"? Sorry for possibly phrasing this in a simplistic way.
NATO is a defensive alliance (although they did get involved in the break up of Yugoslavia)
Putin's twisted narrative is that it is a threat to Mother Russia. He controls the media and the country, hence he can peddle these lies unchallenged.
Yes I think so, Pierre. He appears to be still thinking in Cold War terms which would make him basically a megalomaniac. Or possibly a Trumpian figure e.g. wanting people to like him, and getting the most support from people who just want a strong Russia, which is a similar viewpoint ultimately.
Many Russians were happy joining the rest of the world shopping at Ikea and eating at McDonalds.
In my liberal Western head, admittedly without having done a lot of historical research, I thought NATO was a kind of defensive pact, a way of uniting to collectively defend any single territory in case it was attacked.
That is the rough idea, but the theory that a NATO country can't assist another (non-NATO) country when asked is nonsense.
I understand in this case where they are trying not to inflame the lunatic at the helm of Russia, but why would any country not go to the aid of another if asked? The rules of engagement are more guidelines, really.
Good point. Let's lobby for the money not to be spent and the kit to be withheld.
What's a few more mass graves full of women, children and the elderly...
people seem to be more than happy to splash the cash for killing machines that perpetuate conflict
@relapsed_mandalorian - jhj is our resident conspiracy theorist/troll. Don't feed him, especially after midnight
Interesting thread on Russian defense exports to India.
https://twitter.com/vasabjit_b/status/1513872150456905748
Does Putin view NATO as a Western Empire gradually enlarging and threatening to encroach on Soviet (yes, not Russian) turf? Is that the “threat”? Sorry for possibly phrasing this in a simplistic way.
My understanding is that Putin believes that the Russian people want a strongman leader - that's what all this Judo, topless bear-wrestling etc is about. It kinda makes sense to me in the context of the rise and fall of the soviet union, and Russia's fate since then. So I think to appear as a strongman, Putin needs and Enemy against which he can demonstrate his strength. The whole "denazification" and NATO-expansion narrative is pretty effective propaganda - those two things press-buttons for large swathes of the Russian population.
I think occupying Crimea has some strategic benefit - but he had already achieved that - what is the benefit of trying to occupy the whole damn country? Same question for the part of Georgia he's invaded? It's just to make him look powerful to the proletariat
It's the modern equivalent of Hitler claiming his meglomania was actually some righteous endeavor to undo the wrongs done to Germany at Versailles.
As an aside: Worth remembering that the NLAW was a combined effort between the UK and Sweden. I would imagine that Sweden have the right to manufacture them in-country as a result
If you’re suggesting that the USA wouldn’t get involved directly militarily, then that is probably true.
Yes, NATO backbone is USA.
ElShalimo
Tibet?
Yes, that started a while back.
Finland are already part of several strategic defensive alliances plus they have a well trained professional army with the latest western weapons.
Not the same as NATO. All EU members will at some point need to join NATO, as stated in one of the condition if I can recall. (last 10 pages of the 1,000 page conditions as someone mentioned several years ago)
How is this seen as “provocation” or “escalation”? Does Putin view NATO as a Western Empire gradually enlarging and threatening to encroach on Soviet (yes, not Russian) turf? Is that the “threat”? Sorry for possibly phrasing this in a simplistic way.
Yes, that's how Putin sees it. i.e. Western empire gradually enlarging. Therefore, it is legitimate to go to war over this for Russia/Putin.
Interesting to see/hear that Finland and Sweden are going join NATO while the Russia/Ukraine war is on. Interesting.
I think occupying Crimea has some strategic benefit – but he had already achieved that
It's also the oil and gas resources there that he wants access to.
he did achieve it but the Ukranians dammed up the main supply of fresh water to Crimea from the river at a town called Kherson, from within Ukraine. Putin didn't like that, I think the Russians have now destroyed the dam.
Interesting to see/hear that Finland and Sweden are going join NATO while the Russia/Ukraine war is on. Interesting.
hardly surprising though is it?
Putin is an idiot if he thought it would result in anything else
Even dafter because his corrupt kleptocracy could collapse in on him; if the Russian armies defeat and retreat around Kyiv were repeated in Donbass, theres a danger his entire army could fall apart.
For someone that relies on his army to keep many parts of his empire 'loyal'- Belarius, Chechenya, Georgia, Kazahkstan, etc not to mention Donbass & Crimea it would make his war a very very stupid move.
hardly surprising though is it?
Not entirely a surprise but would be good to know the official time for joining after all they are just press release at the moment. Nothing signed yet.
I pray that my theory is wrong ...
Putin is an idiot if he thought it would result in anything else
Time will tell if that is the case as the Ukraine/Russia war is not over yet.
Even dafter because his corrupt kleptocracy could collapse in on him; if the Russian armies defeat and retreat around Kyiv were repeated in Donbass, theres a danger his entire army could fall apart.
That I want to see as previous "conquerors" of Russia failed miserably.
For someone that relies on his army to keep many parts of his empire ‘loyal’- Belarius, Chechenya, Georgia, Kazahkstan, etc not to mention Donbass & Crimea it would make his war a very very stupid move.
Yes, I bet they are copying USA (keeping parts of their forces in NATO states) by keeping parts of their forces stationed in other countries.
That I want to see as previous “conquerors” of Russia failed miserably.
Nobody is trying to conquer Russia! They are the ones trying to do the conquering ffs. Why is that so hard to see?
if the Russian armies defeat and retreat around Kyiv were repeated in Donbass, theres a danger his entire army could fall apart.
But if he thought there was any fear of that happening he will escalate – chemical weapons or even tactical nuclear (ie, lower powered warheads for more localised impact). He daren't lose – especially with the annual Victory Day Parade just four weeks away.
That I want to see as previous “conquerors” of Russia failed miserably.
Germany conquered them in 1917.
Historically "Russia" is not very good at fighting.
Historically “Russia” is not very good at fighting.
They did a pretty good* job in 1945.
*If raping and pillaging their way across Germany counts as 'good'. And IIRC the 'best' of the German defences were defending the Eastern front at that time – albeit a very depleted army.
Then there's Stalingrad (although TBF the weather defeated the Germans as much as the Russian resistance did).
Germany conquered them in 1917.
Historically “Russia” is not very good at fighting.
That's true but somehow very determine to see them through. Not sure how they succeeded in the past but I guess it might be the donated technology from the west?
They did a pretty good* job in 1945.
Yes, they did well then with their dated technology.
Yes, they did well then with their dated technology.
Well they did have one of the most effective, efficient and influential tanks used in WWII (which was first used in service in 1940 so not so dated technology either).
Lend lease and huge support by the allies, particularly the US was also a huge factor in the USSR's WW2 performance. As will the modern version be to Ukraine's.
Does Putin view NATO as a Western Empire gradually enlarging and threatening to encroach on Soviet (yes, not Russian) turf? Is that the “threat”?
This is a very interesting question.
Does he actually believe this, really, and therefore has to stop the NATO encroachment somehow? The soviets were always scared of a first-strike from NATO even though that was never a possibility. It is however possible that he might genuinely see NATO as a threat.
It is also possible that he knows Russia itself has no reason to fear invasion and is just using this as an excuse for a land-grab and a bid to sure up his position domestically.
Who can say what his real motivation truly is?
Germany conquered them in 1917.
Kind of. Fought them to a stalemate and then they lost the will to continue and had a revolution instead, Germany never actually took over and ran the place as part of their own empire.
Genghis Khan conquered most of it, but that was ages ago
They did a pretty good* job in 1945.
They achieved victory with losses that would of been unacceptable to almost any other nation. They threw their soldiers lives away.
They achieved victory with losses that would of been unacceptable to almost any other nation. They threw their soldiers lives away.
Was it worth it? What if Paris had fought like Stalingrad? More lives would be lost there and then, but how much shorter would the war have been?
Lazerpig covers this too
They achieved victory with losses that would of been unacceptable to almost any other nation. They threw their soldiers lives away.
^ Very true
Not entirely a surprise but would be good to know the official time for joining after all they are just press release at the moment. Nothing signed yet.
If you read was has been said both countries are currently discussing internally whether to put in their applications. They need a pretty strong consensus within their countries to do so.
They threw their soldiers lives away.
A technique they seem to be following in Ukraine. Life is cheap in Russia.
If you read was has been said both countries are currently discussing internally whether to put in their applications. They need a pretty strong consensus within their countries to do so.
Do they need to put that to the voters or just consensus from all political parties?
A technique they seem to be following in Ukraine. Life is cheap in Russia.
Their soldiers need to learn fast or the chance of survival is slim.
I'd like to say that Putin is an idiot but unfortunately he's getting what he wants with the land bridge to the Crimea.
Let's hope the sanctions leave Russia as the poorest country in Europe and a pariah. Maybe his loyal followers might put 2 and 2 together.
This is a very interesting question.
Does he actually believe this, really, and therefore has to stop the NATO encroachment somehow?
He's a dictator who currently enjoys the support of his people. He is also acutely aware that the reason why Ukraine pivoted from wanting to be in the Russian sphere of influence to wanting to be part of Europe because they could see how rapidly Poland was progressing economically after they joined the EU. He doesn't want a country on his border doing so well that it sheds light on all the falsehoods that prop up his regime, as this will make it harder for him to stay on power, basically.
Do they need to put that to the voters or just consensus from all political parties?
I think it's just getting an agreement across parties. In Finland public support for joining Nato has climbed from 28% in February to 62% last month.
Pretty much certain Finland will now join NATO.
Then Sweden will follow.
Well done Putin, you strategic genius.
Rumours on Twitter, unconfirmed, that the Ukrainians have badly damaged the Russian cruiser Moskva. This is the flag ship of the Black sea fleet. I really hope this turns out to be true. Putin will be spitting feathers.
https://twitter.com/visegrad24/status/1514338722359218178?s=20&t=O4q0tKcu8XSx4qTimF2ogg
If true, it's been hit by Ukrainian made Neptune missiles apparently.
I suspect it is true.
Edit: Damn your edit.😉
This is interesting.
Now, you know why Finland and Sweden should need to think hard, very hard.
Scott Ritter, that name rings a bell. Wasn't he a weapons inspector? How much would/do you trust his judgement?
This is another interesting interview.
Finland & Sweden please think if it is wise ...
Interesting views from an army perspective.
I was asking what you thought about this Scott Ritter's judgement, wasn't he the weapons inspector guy?
I'll ask about Colonel MacGregor in a minute.
I was asking what you thought about this Scott Ritter’s judgement, wasn’t he the weapons inspector guy?
Listen to the clip carefully as he explained himself clearly.
If someone like me can understand what he said surely a native speaker can understand him even better?
That's not what I'm asking chewkw. My questions were:
1) Wasn't Scott Ritter the weapons inspector guy from the late 1990s?
2) What are your thoughts on his judgement and his objectivity?
Ex weapons inspector now employed by Russia Today and is a twice convicted paedophile...Putin's shills are not the brightest and best humanity has to offer.
I'd be very interested in Chewkw's honest and non-de-flectionary answers to my questions.
What the heck, the same questions apply to Colonel Douglas MacGregor too.
Didn't Scott Ritter mix in the same circles as one of the most powerful unelected figures of HM
Government in recent memory, Sir Mark Sedwill (Baron Sedwill)?
Hard to say who is the most trustworthy...
