Originally Posted by MaxQ
Since you responded yourself, with some thoughtfulness, you deserve a more lengthy and detailed reply than I can do on my phone. Just as my last 3 posts have tons more info implicitly embedded, this too will be mostly abreviated with unexplained assertions.
. First poiint: Your argued causes, while having plausibility, are mostly wrong. They are based on Russian disinformation datiingback to Stalin, which was amplified by his allies to justify their acquiescence. It has become accepted as common knowledge, revived by Putin in 21st century. It is a load of horsecrap parroted by the ignorant. Even those with foreign affairs credentials, but lacking knowledge of Russia parrot it.
. Second point: NATO of itself was/is not a deterrence. It is defensive only. The only deterence would be the will of USA and others to supply Ukraine with the means to defend. Russia believed its own rhetoric, and that of both the far right an d far left in the West, that there would be no forthcoming aid. ( and that theycould blackmail Europe) In the immediate near term their intelligence failed them.
With their ideological and cultural alliance with Right Wing politicians and right wing populist politics, they may yet prove right regarding their assessment of Western assistance to Ukraine.
Your third point rests on your knowledge of deficiencies in USA and others capabilities.
In fact they dwarf Russias. Russia only has a logistical advantage in overall population and a somewhat, but notby much, shorter supply chain. Other than that, Russia is a mess. They can't even manufacture there own gun barrels for some of their artillery. At least one economist lists Russia's largest GDP item as payments made for the protection racket that permeates society. The top guys then export this through money laundering to foreign countries and entities such as Trump properties. This means that for Russia to have a logistically effective military operation Putin has to figure out how to undo 30 plus years of how business and governace their is done. Oligarchic Fascism (as opposed to National Fascism) is a tough nut to reform, particularly from the top down. All the players are who keep the top in power. It would take a revolution similar to Ukraine's EuroMaidan.
. In short, unless the West shrugs and does as you and others advocate, the logistical advantage lies with the USA and other western powers. The problems you point out are not anywhere near as large as theproblems Russia has.
To sum up. Their is some validity to your 3 points, but your overall conclusions are in error.
Your advocacy gives political power to US political players whom actively work to further Russia's strategic aims and further foment instability in the world. This instability has real consequences of increased death and suffering.
What cause of this did I argue? Russian paranoia mostly. That's pretty well established historically and was part and parcel of the agreement with Stalin at Yalta, the agreement to allow the division of Germany and that the eastern part be administered by the USSR. But Russian paranoia (and, yes, expansionism too when possible, greatly preceded that, dating back even before Katherine the Great when Russian borders even encompassed Alaska. But post WWII, it was broadly accepted that Russian/Soviet paranoia was responsible for the formation of the Warsaw Pact. https://www.maynoothuniversity.ie/re...oia-about-west
What causes did I advocate? Adequacy of military readiness I will grant you. But most of the logistics stuff is either geography, other statements of fact, or comes right out of DOD training manuals/squadron officer's school, command and staff school or Air War College readings.
The claim that NATO is about deterrence is given in NATOs own documents:
https://www.nato.int/docu/review/articles/2022/12/30/deterrence-what-it-can-and-cannot-do/index.html
Surely you aren't claiming that is disinformation and certainly not Russian disinformation, are you?
The FACTS are:
That Ukraine is at a huge disadvantage militarily due to demographics. That is irrefutable based on both prewar and postwar demographics. Neither country had much of a fertility rate even before the conflict, but the ability (and apparently willingness) of Russia to conscript from their military age population greatly exceeds that of Ukraine.
The resource base between the two nations greatly favors Russia. Russia is the largest country on Earth with a resource base that greatly exceeds that of Ukraine. And logistically it is far easier for Russia to get weapons, munitions, vehicles, POL, food, and everything else to the FEBA than for the US to get those things there.
Now since you seem very willing to give me advice I'll give some to you.
1. Not everybody that disagrees with you is some simpleton rube held in thrall by either Russian propaganda or some New York real estate shyster. Sometimes they just know different things than you know, respawn different classified in the SCIF than you did, or just have a different life experience that leads them to interpret even the same set of facts differently.
2. You are unlikely to win those people over by either assuming or flat-out stating that they are simpleton rubes or morally deficient. Had Hillary passed up the cheap shot deplorables comment (in a state she was going to win by 2 million votes anyway) I truly believe the NY real estate shyster would have never been president, because even deplorables get a vote and wise individuals don't gratuitously insult the other side.
3. We are not developing two new limited yield warheads because the guys at Los Alamos just need gainful employment. We are doing it to DETER adversaries and because we believe they may indeed be needed if that deterrence fails. We are not doing it because we believe that nuclear weapons will never be used, for all their most desired purpose is deterrence.
