"Will Putin Test NATO Article 5 in the Black Sea Region?" Topic

"While many think any such Russian action would be in the Baltics and Putin remains obsessed with Poland, Moscow has been more aggressive in the Black Sea region (BSR). NATO should expect more Russian probes along its eastern flank, including even a test of Article 5, but focus more on the Black Sea region.

Danish Defense Minister Troels Lund Poulsen warns that Russia could attack NATO in 3-5 years. Polish BBN chief Jacek Siewiera suggests three years, NATO Military Committee Chair Rob Bauer 3-7 years, German Defense Minister Boris Pistorius 5-7 years, and UK Defence Secretary Grant Shapps within the next five years. Former Bulgarian Prime Minister Nikolai Denkov spoke of 3-10 years. Estonia's foreign intelligence service has spoken of a military confrontation "within the next decade." The German army has even exercised for an attack on the Suwalki Corridor as early as 2025…"

Main page

link

Armand

Now that everyone has set forth their expected timeline, Russia should obviously strike next week.

It remains to substantiate such forecasts with facts)))
Although… Putin and the Russians are just idiots. They will do it because they can)))

Dear Cuprum… allow me to ask … you and the people you know…

a) Like to be at War?

b) Think that War is inevitable because you are Russians?

c) You are pacifists but you live in a state of permanent alteration for fear of being invaded?

d) Knowing that for decades the military budgets of NATO countries were extremely poor… is the fear of invasion more for social or economy changes rather than military?

e) Do you really think that Ukraine will surrender unconditionally?

f) In the very hypothetical case that Russia begins to lose brutally on the battlefield and is pushed to its original borders… what would be your reaction?

g) What do you think about Georgia?….does it belong to Russia or should it be independent?

h) If you were called up to war and had the opportunity to move free with your family to a neutral country (for example Argentina)… would you do it or would you go to war regardless of the cost?

Thanks in advance for your response.

Armand

Will Putin Test NATO Article 5 in the Black Sea Region?

It depends on who wins the POTUS election.

Yes, of course ask.

1) No person in his right mind likes to fight.

2) I think war is inevitable as long as all Russia's concerns and interests are ignored.

3) I don't think that we are pacifists – if it is impossible to defend your interests without a fight, and the opponent does not want to compromise, you need to fight. Changes? I don't understand exactly what changes you mean.
The fear of invasion is always present, especially when a potential enemy has been behaving aggressively in this world for many years.

4) Despite the paucity of NATO funding in recent years, it clearly surpassed Russia in both military and economic potential. NATO has constantly sought to bring its infrastructure closer to Russia's borders, which can be used to facilitate the strike and increase its effectiveness. Which means it was dangerous.

5) I would like to hope for unconditional surrender, since otherwise Ukraine will most likely be a constant reason for the resumption of hostilities. The victory of one of the parties must be obvious and unambiguous.

6) If Russia is defeated on the battlefield (which is unlikely without direct NATO intervention), then this will be a reason to gather strength and continue hostilities further. If NATO intervenes and Russia is threatened with destruction, this will likely be the reason for a nuclear war.

7) Russia has no claims against Georgia. Georgians do not threaten Russia – Russia does not threaten Georgia. We trade for mutual interest. If Georgia wants to regain Abkhazia and South Ossetia, they must negotiate about this, taking into account the interests of each of these nations.

8) I am a citizen of my country and a patriot. Russia's defeat in this war threatens the very existence of Russia as a state (Western politicians and Russian collaborators have repeatedly publicly stated their desire to divide Russia into many small, insignificant states). So I would go to do my duty.
I don't want to leave Russia anywhere. This is my home and here are my people. I am ready to share his fate.

Clearly with Russian fanatics all we can do is wipe out the Russian Economically so it can never threated the West again. Germany did its best to show the west Was not Hostile. The corrup Russians seeked to exploit our good will and betray us terribly. We will not forget that betrayal. We must ensure they NEVER regain an economy that can threaten the West, clearly they are a faile state. The west never threatened them, they agreed to allow Ukraine to be an independent state and renaged on their agreemnent. They are not fit to be a world power.

Here is an excellent illustration of what I said above…

By the way. How's the German economy doing? I hope your proxy war with Russia is working to your advantage?

"Russia's defeat in this war threatens the very existence of Russia as a state" Says who? The mad putin supporters who spend their time telling the world that they will sink the UK, destroy the West, nuke the world?

It is to the West's advantage that Russia remains intact and does not descend into a number of diddy states,

Tally Ho!

Yes, we are already very close to the borders of NATO and are preparing to attack them))) We have advanced hundreds of kilometers over the past thirty years)))

"Yes, we are already very close to the borders of NATO and are preparing to attack them"

At last some truth. :-)

From you? This is impossible ;-)

The sooner we see the Vladimir Putin going out of business sale the better off the world will be.

Wow! Reading these threads, is like listening to the rhetoric prior to WW1. Espousing the same logic and justifications. After all these years, nothing seems to change. It's time for all sides to step back!

Does Russia have the right to feel fear from a NATO, that has expanded to their borders and now is talking seriously about admitting the Ukraine? Disagree or not, yes they do. It is a historic paranoia of The Russians going back centuries. Some legitimate and some not. But the paranoia exists, right or wrong. One has to understand this and work with it. It will never disappear.

NATO should never have expanded this far, it was unnecessary and if Russia attacks, non-defensible short of the use of nukes. NATO was developed as an offshoot to an aggressive Warsaw Pact. The time for these alliances have passed and alliances allow for no leeway for countries involved. This has been proven over and over.

To the Russian supporters: If the West had wanted to destroy Russia, they could have at the end of WW2. The advantages were with them, especially with the atomic bombs. Russia cut off from allied equipment, food, oil, etc. Even German soldiers said they were ready to continue the fight. But the West didn't.

Do the countries on the border of Russia have the right to fear Russia? Of course they do. That has been proven throughout history. Russians have to understand their paranoia of Russia. Most recently Russia went into Georgia, Chechnya, and the Ukraine now twice. Not exactly something that would make anyone feel safe and secure. Hence the reason so many new countries have joined NATO since the current invasion. What can Russia do to stop that fear?

Putin seems to have delusions of being the next Peter the Great and people like Dugan feed that. Does the world really need a "Putin the Great"?

As I said, listen to yourselves. It is time to step down! Are we doomed now for the "Perpetual wars" of "1984"?

IMO, The world situation has gone to H#ll since 2020. Wars, inflation, diseases, turmoil abroad and domestically, the breakdown of law and order, mass invasions of illegals into Europe, Turkey, Canada, Australia, U.S. and some others. If one was religious, one could believe the end times are near. 😔

35thOVI, I agree in many ways, but what can be done now? Now when no one trusts anyone anymore? When is such a price paid that any compromise will be considered a defeat – both in Russia and in the West?
Don't know. We need a new Yalta 1945. Is it possible? I highly doubt it. Especially considering that this is not the only serious conflict in the world.

Why didn't the West attack the USSR when it did not yet have nuclear weapons? At that time, the United States had atomic bombs in its arsenal, which were highly destructive, but their power was measured in tens and hundreds of kilotons. Is this too much? This power is quite enough to cause significant damage to any city. But… This is not a thermonuclear weapon, the power of which is measured in megatons!
Moreover, in the second half of the 1940s, the Americans did not have many atomic bombs. A few dozens. This was clearly not enough for a war against the USSR. After all, the Soviet Union at that time had, without exaggeration, the most powerful and experienced ground army in the world. If the United States and its allies decided to attack the USSR, they would receive a powerful counterattack in Europe, where military defeat would be very likely. And in the East, China would most likely enter the war.
There would have been very unclear prospects in that war… Would the United States have bombed Europe with nuclear bombs, where Soviet troops were located? Would they be able to reach the Ural military factories of the USSR? Hardly…

Putin wanted Russia to be accepted into Western civilization as an equal. But they gave it the place of a gas station-semi-colony and began to build a new "cordon sanitaire" around it for "containment."

Russia could have captured Georgia completely if it wanted to – the Georgian army was defeated, Russian troops stood on the outskirts of the capital. But the Russians went back, maintaining the status quo that existed before the start of this war. Russia entered this war after Georgia launched an open attack on Russian peacekeepers stationed in the region. Once upon a time, ten years earlier, Russian troops separated the warring Georgians and Ossetians, stopping the massacre.

Chechnya was part of Russia and there was a rebellion there. Russia tried to suppress this rebellion and lost this war, recognizing the independence of Chechnya. But five years later, Chechnya attacked Russia, trying to seize Dagestan. By the way, before the arrival of the main forces of the Russian army, Dagestan was actively defended by a massive local militia – local volunteers who were given weapons. They did not want to become part of the Chechen state. After this, the armed forces of Ichkeria were defeated, and the republic again became part of Russia.

There would be no war in Ukraine if the legitimate government had not been overthrown there with the direct and open support of the West. A year later, elections were supposed to take place in Ukraine and Yanukovych was simply re-elected. Before him, Ukraine was ruled by Yushchenko – clearly not a pro-Russian president, and no one attacked Ukraine. No one can also say that Yanukovych was elected illegally, since the elections were absolutely legitimate. Why was the rebellion necessary? This is a sharp and treacherous violation of the existing status quo. Russia could not help but respond.

However, why am I saying this? I've said this many times. Everyone has their own view of events – and this is natural. It is difficult to be objective if you are involved in a conflict.
Are they afraid of us in Eastern European countries? Yes, sure. But it is not clear why no one is ready to take our concerns into account? Such issues are usually resolved through negotiations. Or wars.

Cuprum2 I won't go into the what ifs of a post WW2 attack, that is pointless.

There are ways to end this. Ways that no side will be happy with. NATO, Russia and the Ukraine will not be happy with the solutions. But that would mean, they would be fair.

Yes, but to do this we must stop the war and sit down at the negotiating table. I can't imagine how… A person who would succeed in this could safely be called "great."

It would take a person who currently does not have a dog in the show. Possibly someone no side really likes. It cannot be anyone who is a current leader of any of the sides, or works in the current government's of any side. Someone who cannot be bought. Someone who is willing to p#SS off anyone and does not care.
And does not care who is offended.

At least those are my thoughts.

Putin wanted Russia to be accepted into Western civilization as an equal. But they gave it the place of a gas station-semi-colony and began to build a new "cordon sanitaire" around it for "containment."

No! Putin did that to you and continues to do so. Not the West.

We should thank Cuprum2 for such honest answers.

The problem, for the West is: "2) I think war is inevitable as long as all Russia's concerns and interests are ignored."

Essentially: give Russia what it demands – a sphere of influence and control over those countries unfortunate enough to be its neighbours or it will try to take it by force.

Thanks Cuprum 2… probably I would respond latter…

Armand

ROUWetPatchBehindTheSofa, no, Gorbachev and Yeltsin did it, to applause and with the assistance of the West. Putin is trying to stop this.

Midlander65, in other words give this to the West. And where he doesn't get it for nothing, he will organize another "revolution". How much did the West spend on the revolution in Ukraine? $5 USD billion, according to Nuland?
You know, now I'll probably believe that the West was led by "Trotskyists", only now their ideas of Bolshevism have degenerated into neoliberalism. But the methods remained the same. Export of the revolution.

35thOVI, the world is already split into pieces. Who can rise above all these conflicts and not be tempted to take sides? Sooner or later, the United States will collide with China – China wants leadership, the United States does not want to give it up… All other conflicts are a proxy war for the brewing main conflict. Ukraine is just an episode in which each party underestimated the other. They wanted to take Russia out of the game before the big war, but in reality they pushed it into the arms of China.

Cuprum2

Let's say you represent Russia. What do you see as the demands that Russia wants, that would allow them to withdraw, be satisfied and guarantee no further invasions? List them in order of priority, remembering no one gets everything they want.

Also, what is it that Russia would most fear losing, that would guarantee their adherence to their agreement?

We know sanctions are a dismal failure. There are too many countries more than willing to pick up the trade slack.

What do you think NATO would most dislike giving up in compromise? I obviously have my ideas.

What would the Ukraine most dislike giving up, (More Land is not an option as Russia has the Crimea now)? Also remember, they gave up their nukes previously. Again I have my own ideas.

As I said, to be good, no one will be completely happy.

As we saw at the end of WW1, totally unfair treaties lead to future disaster.

It depends on who wins the POTUS election.

Bingo !!! As I have said predators' sense and go after the weak in nature. It is the same in geopolitics/Realpolitik, etc.

But yes, Putin and Russia would prove to be very foolish to test NATO Art.5. They have to know the Ukraine's Military with much support from NATO and other nations. Has attrited about 50% of Russian troops & material …

Now it seems Putin/Russia's leaders are trying to save face. And at best they may be allowed to keep the Donbas, land bridge to Crimea, and Crimea[which Putin annexed in 2014 during the Obama admin].

I highly doubt with the high losses the Russians have suffered, they may take little more of Ukraine's terrain. As they have taken a few other small towns and villages. But no "Operation Cobra" …

Again I blame part the Ukraine's situation with the US leaders slow walking much of the support they needed at least a year ago. E.g. from reports it looks like the F-16s Ukraine wanted over a year ago. Are there or on the way. Better late than never … but that is a very poor narrative in this case.

ROUWetPatchBehindTheSofa, no, Gorbachev and Yeltsin did it, to applause and with the assistance of the West. Putin is trying to stop this.

How long ago was that now exactly? Sorry, that washes no better some random Western incumbent politician, arguing that the state of country is the fault of those in charge 2, 3 or more administrations ago… How is Putin trying to stop it since he appears utterly complicit in a system that can really only be described as kleptocratic?

35thOVI, everything was already said on the eve of the war:

link

link

ROUWetPatchBehindTheSofa, Since Putin's rise, Russia's economic condition has improved significantly compared to previous reigns. There are no complaints against him here.

Cuprum2

"Midlander65, in other words give this to the West. And where he doesn't get it for nothing, he will organize another "revolution". How much did the West spend on the revolution in Ukraine? $5.00 USD USD billion, according to Nuland?
You know, now I'll probably believe that the West was led by "Trotskyists", only now their ideas of Bolshevism have degenerated into neoliberalism. But the methods remained the same. Export of the revolution."

Easter Europe has plenty of experience of being part of the Russian / Soviet empire: having a low standard of living with no human rights and being kept in that situation by Russian occupying forces aided by corrupt and compliant governments. In the case of Ukraine they also have the memory of a famine directly caused by Russia, whether by genocidal intent or incompetence and ideology.

The argument that they really like this, want it to continue for ever and would only choose a different path if the CIA orchestrates a coup seems unconvincing to me.

There are no complaints against him here.

Yeah, because agents of the state are willing to murder critics with WMD in foreign states to make a point.

As for the economics of Russia, you are aware just how much of joke your country is on the internet on that score, even before the invasion? Life sure looks kind'a rosy in the major cities, assuming your willing to bow to the state and not make waves, but what about the provinces?

Cuprum2

Ok rhetoric and accusations aside, as it gets all sides nowhere. Yes I read your links. Let's play the peace game just as a change from all these TMP threads. Remember to have a peace, there has to be a willingness on all sides to give up on demands, reasonable and unreasonable.

I'll start. A guarantee that the Ukraine will never be allowed in NATO, I'll even throw in Belarus, although that seems unlikely now, Belarus could always change their stance on Russia later.

Ok, What concession will Russia make? No demands, a concession. We have to agree it's a concession. Demands all happen later.

Cuprum2: "35thOVI, everything was already said on the eve of the war:"

In regard to the supposed agreement sabotaged by the West, here is another take on what really happened, with a paper by Samuel Charap and Sergey Radchenko published in Foreign Affairs.

link

In summary, whilst there were various proposals back and forth, none was ever actually agreed between Ukraine and Russia, let alone the other proposed parties. Two particular sticking points were in the security guarantees by Russia, UK, USA, France and China. First, that none of the other parties had actually agreed to go to war with Russia in the event of yet another attack. Then, very late in the process, Russia slipped in an amendment that any action would require unanimous agreement by the guarantors – ie, whatever guarantees other countries had given, in the event that Russia invaded again, it would have a veto on anybody helping Ukraine.

Well worth a detailed real and much more nuanced than the self-service Kremlin line that Cuprum2 referenced.

On the first link, I'm now really confused. It is a draft of a proposed treaty from 2021 between Russia and the USA. Article 4 states: "The United States of America shall undertake to prevent further eastward expansion of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization and deny accession to the Alliance to the States of the former Union of Soviet Socialist Republics."

Why would that be necessary? We've been told repeatedly that such a commitment already existed but the West broke it, forcing Russia to invade its neighbours to save them. Also, given that this is only a draft, that seems to confirm that no such commitment was aver made.

Personally, I appreciate Cuprum's candid responses and his willingness to carry on these types of conversations in an on-going manner. As I have said before, he is a Russian in Russia. What do you expect him to think? Also, he is no more responsible for what his government does than we are responsible for what our respective government's do. He doesn't make national policy any more than we do.

So the impression I get from almost everyone in these threads is, that peace is impossible.

One side demands that Russia pull back completely with the expansion of NATO in any country must be allowed and Russia must pay reparations. Would that include the Crimea? The other, the Ukraine must surrender, give up more territory, reduce its army to a pittance, let Russia control the leadership of the Ukraine and have no guarantee of future sovereignty.

Is that in a nutshell? If so, does anyone else see by that criteria, peace is impossible without the destruction of one or the other, or a full blown disaster of a world war takes place and we all surrender?

I've said before, we can dump money and military equipment into the Ukraine until hel# freezes over and as long as Russia is willing to sustain the casualties and continue, the Ukraine cannot win. The population difference will quarantine that outcome. Unfortunate for all who die, but still the ultimate end.

I believe the chances of a surprise Ukrainian victory died with their last offensive, the fact that Putin is still in power, sanctions were a colossal failure, China, North Korea, Iran, India and others are willing to supply arms, buy Russian products or both.

But even if Russia does destroy the Ukrainian Army, they still may be in for a prolonged Guerrilla war similar to Afghanistan. Costing more lives, expenses and ultimately a disaster to the economy from being on a war footing. Not to mention the Russian citizens finally becoming fed up with years of war and deaths.

So again, can anything be offered that could overt the ultimate destruction of the Ukraine or WW3? The longer this continues, the easier it will become for the ultimate mistake to be made.

And now the stakes have been upped by France according to multiple sources. I guess 2 wars were not enough?

Subject: France sends combat troops to Ukraine battlefront – Asia Times


link

I read 3 sources of the above. If fake I apologize. But it has been hinted by many sources for about a week.

Midlander65 – The USSR has been gone for thirty years. It is time for you to wake up. Otherwise, you should be afraid of Germany as well)))

OK. They chose this themselves, without the participation of the CIA. But those who did not submit to the coup in Kyiv are undoubtedly Russian agents. Is it true? Have you heard anything about the Anti-Maidan in Kyiv at the same time? Hardly. Western news didn't talk about this…
link
For any revolution there is always a counter-revolution. Especially in Ukraine, which has been split into pro-Russian and pro-Western for centuries.

Negotiations are better than war. If you are not satisfied with something, offer counter-offers and work on a compromise. Isn't that how it's done? And naturally, the first proposals are a bid for maximum benefit in one's favor; this is the position from which bargaining takes place.

The commitment not to expand NATO to the East was given to Gorbachov orally – and he agreed to it. A stupid beautiful-hearted idiot or a traitor. His name is forever cursed in Russia.
Why advance NATO if Russia voluntarily withdraws its troops from Europe, if it does not interfere with the unification of Germany, if it disbands the withdrawn troops without any obligations from the West? Why deploy missile defense facilities in Europe? There are many reasons… This looks exclusively like preparation for a war against Russia. If the countries of Eastern Europe are afraid of a Russian invasion, they could create their own defensive bloc, but not use or replenish the full potential of NATO. In addition, NATO has repeatedly demonstrated not a defensive, but an aggressive character – starting with the destruction of Yugoslavia.

ROUWetPatchBehindTheSofa – kill? What, there was a trial, the guilt was established and proven? How can you call someone guilty without a court decision?
I live in a deep province, in the south of Siberia, not far from the border with China and Kazakhstan. Are you going to tell me that I feel bad here?)))
YouTube link
This is the deepest Russian province. What's wrong there?

35thOVI, alas, it also seems to me that we have already passed the station at which peace was possible. All that remains is to hope for a miracle.

Oh I found a video straight from where I live. A family of Australians moved to our Altai region for permanent residence. They have their own channel on YouTube.

YouTube link

Dear Cuprum…. sorry for the delay and grateful once again for your response…

It is difficult for me to understand this fear of invasion by countries like England, France or Germany on Russian soil… anyone who has visited, read or analyzed them… there is not the slightest possibility that the armed forces of any of those countries (not to mention smaller countries like Poland or Belgium) even try to set foot on Russian soil… unless there is an invasion or attack on your part first…

Now… if we talk about economic fear… I understand the concern about being "invaded" by products that have no local competition… also because of the "moral" issue about human rights, LGTV, etc. .. but you know that there are many countries that do not "buy" that and do not go to military war for that reason..

Economic war?… of course… political?… certainly… moral?… understandable… but going into a military invasion trying to take over an entire country… well… I don't understand How is that justified…

Another worrying issue… how come you think Ukraine should surrender unconditionally?… You Russians know very well about the fighting spirit of the Cossacks and their descendants… you know that they are as tough as any Russian… And furthermore, any country worth its salt is going to defend itself to the death against an invasion…

It is not clear to me about a nuclear intervention… if Russia is defeated UP TO the line of its original borders or if it is defeated in the event that its enemy CROSS those lines…

Having said that… I dare to ask a couple more questions…

Are you aware of the Treaty made between Russia and Moldova where, according to what was established, after a time the Russian troops would withdraw and return the territory to the Moldovans?

Finally… why do you think that the European countries that were under the Soviet orbit differed SO MUCH economically and socially once they regained their independence and do not have the best memory of you?… why do you think they joined forces defensively against you? …why do you think that historically neutral countries like Sweden, Denmark or Finland also joined forces against Rusia?…

Amicalement
Armand

Tango01, and Great Britain, and France, and Germany, and Poland have already invaded Russia in the past. The troops of France and Poland were in Moscow. Every hundred years there is another big invasion from the West. Moreover, this was never a response to a Russian invasion.

There are no, or almost no, any complaints against the West for economic reasons. On the contrary, trade is beneficial to all parties. As for "neoliberal values", we don't care what you do at home. But we prefer traditional values. It's simply not worth promoting this agenda in Russia. This is very annoying to the population. We are conservative in a lot of ways.
Yes, Putin has been in power for a very long time, yes, I have personally observed election violations before, yes, there is serious corruption in Russia – but I also see that Putin's support among the population is enormous and it is real. It is impossible to reelect him democratically. And this is due to the chaos that pro-Western politicians have caused in Russia (Gorbachov, Yeltsin). As long as the people who lived through that time are alive, pro-Western politicians in Russia have no chance. We don't want to go back to the devastation and gangster paradise of the 90s. Putin is definitely better, despite all his shortcomings.

No one was going to take over Ukraine (look at Putin's Ultimatum and the original draft peace agreements). But there is a war going on, costs and casualties are growing, which means this war needs to be ended so that it does not continue in the future. The best way now is the final defeat of one side. Everything else threatens a repeat of the war after some time.
For us, Ukrainians and Belarusians are also the same Russians (three parts of one people). And all our people, at any level, believe that the Ukrainians are fighting well. They treat them as an enemy with respect (except for the Azov Nazi detachments and its branches).

The Russians do not believe that they are waging a war with Ukraine, the Russians believe that they are waging a war with a NATO proxy army. Otherwise, this issue will not be considered. There is no point in negotiating with a hand – you need to talk with its owner. In the West, officials have repeatedly stated that the goal of the war with Russia is its dismemberment. In fact – destruction. There is nowhere to retreat.

Here is the agreement on the withdrawal of Russian troops from Moldova.
link

And here is a memorandum that allowed for the unification of Moldova on the terms of federalization and leaving a small contingent of Russian troops (mainly to protect the giant warehouses of Soviet ammunition on the territory of Transnistria and to prevent the resumption of civil war in these territories). And this memorandum was thwarted by the position of the West:
link

The reasons are different. There is also a banal fear of Russia, there is also a desire to receive and maintain preferences from the European Union and the United States, there is also pressure from the United States (or rather even supranational structures, the so-called "world government" located in the United States).

Do you really think that today's Russia poses a much greater danger to Europe than the USSR? This is ridiculous. This is a completely different scale. I believe that there is a big global game going on for the redivision of the world, the main players in it are the USA and China, and Russia is only a supporting player who was going to be easily removed from the game on its own terms. But they miscalculated, and now they are forced to continuously raise rates.

I have found only one new source this morning on the Legion story. Nothing on morning news. My apologies, I was unfamiliar with the "Asia Times"

Cuprum, Russia still has the nuclear weapons made by the USSR. It is capable of causing considerable damage and loss of life in the West. Since some of the Russian leadership is threatening to use them, then yes, Russia is more dangerous right at this moment than the USSR used to be.

The Russians do not believe that they are waging a war with Ukraine, the Russians believe that they are waging a war with a NATO proxy army.

Does not really matter, Russia invaded the Ukraine for no real reason. And not only NATO nations are supporting the Ukraine but, e.g. Australia sent some AFVs, etc. They are not part of NATO.

there is also pressure from the United States (or rather even supranational structures, the so-called "world government" located in the United States).

That is a bit of a skewed assessment. The US nor anyone in NATO, AFAIK want a world government. They just may want to be ready if Russia tries to, e.g. take back and reoccupy their former WP
allies' nations, etc., etc. But again, Russia can't defeat the Ukraine, let alone take on NATO.

Do you really think that today's Russia poses a much greater danger to Europe than the USSR?

Certainly not now with the Russians taking very heavy losses of men and material.

Cuprum2: "Tango01, and Great Britain, and France, and Germany, and Poland have already invaded Russia in the past. The troops of France and Poland were in Moscow. Every hundred years there is another big invasion from the West. Moreover, this was never a response to a Russian invasion."

You told me a few posts ago that the USSR was more than 30 years ago and I should get over it. The last British invasion of Russia that I can think of was more than a century ago and the French were in Moscow more than 200 years ago – and that ended badly for them. Perhaps we all need to move on.

I promise you nobody here in the UK would want to attack Russia and the possibility is never discussed. There is an apocryphal story that lesson one at the British Army Staff College is never fight a land war in Asia and never march on Moscow!

I also don't believe that the current Russian leadership believes there is any possibility that NATO would attack Russia – if they did they wouldn't have spent the best units of the Army and so much material invading Ukraine and then stripped defences from the NATO borders to support that invasion.

There is a threat that Ukraine poses to Russia – or at least to Putin's kleptocratic regime. If Ukraine makes a successful future as a democratic country with a better standard of living, less corruption and meeting Western expectations for human rights, Russians might start asking awkward questions about why they can't have the same.

"There is a threat that Ukraine poses to Russia – or at least to Putin's kleptocratic regime. If Ukraine makes a successful future as a democratic country with a better standard of living, less corruption and meeting Western expectations for human rights, Russians might start asking awkward questions about why they can't have the same…"

This is the real clue…

Thanks Cuprum for your rush reply… probably I would responde latter…

Armand

Dagwood, you are wrong, these are not old Soviet nuclear weapons. Russia has already been rearmed with new nuclear weapons of the latest development:

link
link
link
link
link
link

Midlander65, yes, all this was a long time ago. But another hundred years passed and NATO came very close to Moscow. Please keep a safe distance))) And everyone will be calmer.
And I beg you… Well, what kind of democracy is there in Ukraine? Ukraine is a feast of oligarchs, exactly the same as it was in Russia quite recently (and is far from being completely eliminated). Democracy where they overthrow the president and shell their own rebellious cities with artillery for decades? Where do the Nazi death squads kill dissent? Where are virtually any parties that oppose a unitary state banned, even though it is a multinational country? Nonsense. Imitation.
There are several components that led to today's conflict:
- the West's desire to gain military dominance over Russia (I'm not saying occupation – I'm saying its subordination in one form or another to the will of the West), in order to exclude it from the equation of future confrontation with China. And with maximum success and the establishment of a pro-Western government, make Russia your proxy army for containment or for a war with China (as Ukraine is now being used against Russia)
- the desire to squeeze Russian business out of Ukraine and replace it with their own (this was mainly the desire of the Europeans – I think now their result is extremely disappointing)
- the desire of the United States to organize instability in Europe also to restrain its development and keep it under its own control and the movement of European capital to itself. And of course, the replacement of Russian energy resources on the European market with their own (here the plan was carried out brilliantly, moreover, now the burden of the main costs of waging a war against Russia will be placed on the Europeans, while the United States takes care of its direct enemy – China)
War is always about the economy. Not about democracy, not about freedom, not about the "Russian world" – these are just motivators. In the end it's always about money)))
Most Russians now care little about democracy – we were given an excellent vaccination against it in the 90s. Russian democracy turned out to have an extremely high price. Our society is not yet ripe for it.

-

Cuprum, so Russia is even more dangerous than the old USSR ?

If Russia decided to make a world communist revolution, then probably yes. But for now it is the West that is organizing neoliberal revolutions around the world. He who kills a dragon becomes a dragon himself.

Caprum2 some of what you say is true, some partially true and based on perspective and sources one believes, some historic Russian paranoia. But in none of your previous post of reasons, did I see any blame on Russia.

As they say, it "takes two to tango". There is blame and cause on both sides. Just like for peace, both most give. 😉

You see, mutual fear is a very serious reason for mutual aggression.

Is there Russia's fault? Blame can always be found. Russia, unfortunately, usually acts clumsily and often acts short-sighted.
But in this case, healthy heads spoke about the possibility of a collision and its consequences both long ago and on the eve of the war… I'm not even saying that Russia constantly talked about the same thing for many years… But these warnings were ignored. Now we have what we have.

Article on the eve of the war:

link

The current Russian government demands control over its neighbours, sometimes to the point of attacking them and annexing their territory.

To back this up, Russian objectors who fled abroad (and innocent bystanders) have been killed with chemical and radiological poisons and there are constant cyber attacks and disinformation campaigns to damage Western countries. Meanwhile Russian state TV regularly promotes genocide against Ukraine and enthuses about the idea of nuking the UK and/or the rest of Europe or sending the Russian Army back to Berlin.

These are the reasons there is fear and suspicion on our side.

btw, Cuprum2's linked article to The American Thinker. – Media Bias says an Extreme Right Wing source with low factual reporting.and promoting conspiracy theories/pseudoscience. link

I'm not over impressed by the prescience of the writers either: "NATO countries that have downgraded their military capabilities are no match to the Russian army. Should Putin order the invasion; Russian tanks will be in Kiev in less than 24 hours."

How interesting it would be to know about the secret documentation about Putin's decision to invade Ukraine… such a blunder without taking into account the true spirit of a Nation to defend itself… of course Putin never thought that NATO would participate in the war and that everything would be a walk with a final parade in the central square of kyiv… what led him to such dangerous idiocy?

Dear Cuprum… do you have any ideas about this…?

Armand