Page 4 of 5
Re: What is NATO for then?
Posted: Sun Dec 18, 2022 2:33 am
by Martin_B
Herainestold wrote: Sat Dec 17, 2022 10:31 pm
Of course whether or not we believe that NATO poses an objective threat, Russia might nonetheless feel threatened. Security combines a physical condition with a state of mind. Dictionary definitions of security refer on the one hand to being ‘the activities involved in protecting a country, building or person against attack, danger, etc.’ and on the other to ‘the state of feeling happy and safe from danger or worry’. Threats to a state are interpreted by those in charge and they decide how happy and safe a country should feel. The more authoritarian the system the more the issue becomes one of what makes the supreme leader insecure, which might be anything that threatens their personal position. If supreme leaders are paranoid, as they often are, this adds to what might prompt a feeling of insecurity. The desire of dictators to be left alone to do their dictating as they wish is why they cling to the principle of ‘non-interference in internal affairs’ as a vital principle in international affairs.
If you can make Putin feel secure, Ukraine and all of Europe is better off. Instead of constantly threatening Russia, the West should look at what make Russia feel secure. Not necessarily happy but at least not threatened.
https://samf.substack.com/p/who-can-gua ... n-security
The question is, what would make Putin feel secure?
If we gave Russia all of Ukraine, and he took Belarus, Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania, giving him a western ring of buffer states, he'd only want more.
He's already invaded Georgia, and would want Armenia, Azerbaijan, and probably most of the 'Stans back.
Then he'd want Moldova, Romania, Bulgaria, all of the old Yugoslavia, Hungary, Czechia, Slovakia, Poland and half of Germany.
Do we then let him roll into Turkey? Greece? Austria? Switzerland? Italy? Finland? France?
When would he feel safe and secure? With the keys to Downing Street, or maybe the White House?
The truth is that Putin will never feel secure; and giving in to him only feeds his paranoia and god-complex. He needs to be beaten and humiliated, as quickly as possible, to end the suffering of the people under his control. Stop trying to pander to him.
Re: What is NATO for then?
Posted: Sun Dec 18, 2022 2:44 am
by EACLucifer
A friend of mine once had a greyhound who was terribly stressed when he was left alone in the house. He would believe he needed to defend the entire building, and race around frantically in case anything happened. The solution was to put him in a cage with a couple of his favourite toys. Then he only had to defend that space, and he was able to settle and relax.
We should take a similar approach with Putin - save for the toys.
Re: What is NATO for then?
Posted: Sun Dec 18, 2022 4:15 am
by Herainestold
EACLucifer wrote: Sun Dec 18, 2022 2:44 am
A friend of mine once had a greyhound who was terribly stressed when he was left alone in the house. He would believe he needed to defend the entire building, and race around frantically in case anything happened. The solution was to put him in a cage with a couple of his favourite toys. Then he only had to defend that space, and he was able to settle and relax.
We should take a similar approach with Putin - save for the toys.
That is a good analogy. Putin doesn't need a bigger space. But he needs to feel secure within a smaller space.
Re: What is NATO for then?
Posted: Sun Dec 18, 2022 6:22 am
by bjn
The question is, why should Russia be the only country that needs to feel secure? I’m sure the Chechens are happy that Grozny was destroyed so that Putin could sleep a bit better in his bed. Moldovans and Georgians too.
What was the term? Oh yes. “f.ck off Tankie.”
Pandering to the aggressor as if they are some victim is sickening.
Re: What is NATO for then?
Posted: Sun Dec 18, 2022 1:47 pm
by Herainestold
bjn wrote: Sun Dec 18, 2022 6:22 am
The question is, why should Russia be the only country that needs to feel secure? I’m sure the Chechens are happy that Grozny was destroyed so that Putin could sleep a bit better in his bed. Moldovans and Georgians too.
What was the term? Oh yes. “f.ck off Tankie.”
Pandering to the aggressor as if they are some victim is sickening.
Because he has nukes.
Re: What is NATO for then?
Posted: Sun Dec 18, 2022 1:58 pm
by shpalman
Herainestold wrote: Sun Dec 18, 2022 1:47 pm
bjn wrote: Sun Dec 18, 2022 6:22 am
The question is, why should Russia be the only country that needs to feel secure? I’m sure the Chechens are happy that Grozny was destroyed so that Putin could sleep a bit better in his bed. Moldovans and Georgians too.
What was the term? Oh yes. “f.ck off Tankie.”
Pandering to the aggressor as if they are some victim is sickening.
Because he has nukes.
So does the West, so I demand Putin starts pandering to us.
Re: What is NATO for then?
Posted: Sun Dec 18, 2022 2:15 pm
by EACLucifer
Herainestold wrote: Sun Dec 18, 2022 1:47 pm
bjn wrote: Sun Dec 18, 2022 6:22 am
The question is, why should Russia be the only country that needs to feel secure? I’m sure the Chechens are happy that Grozny was destroyed so that Putin could sleep a bit better in his bed. Moldovans and Georgians too.
What was the term? Oh yes. “f.ck off Tankie.”
Pandering to the aggressor as if they are some victim is sickening.
Because he has nukes.
He tries, he dies. So does Russia. He knows that.
So get it through your own thick f.cking head. He won't go nuclear, because if he does, he becomes one with the atmosphere. He cannot win a nuclear exchange due to the extremely capable second strike capability possessed by no fewer than three NATO nations. He can't counter continuous at sea ballistic missile submarines armed with multiple ICBMs each carrying a dozen or more warheads. So he won't.
And Russian nuclear doctrine only allows for first use when the survival of the state is threatened. NATO tanks could be in St Petersburg and it wouldn't trip their doctrinal first use, so stop f.cking fretting over some NATO arms reaching Ukraine.
If you want the war to be over, support military aid to Ukraine. Not just dribs and drabs, but continuous high quality aid as fast as they can absorb it so as to achieve a decisive Ukrainian advantage - and thus an end to the war and not just a postponement of the second half - sooner rather than later.
Re: What is NATO for then?
Posted: Sun Dec 18, 2022 3:04 pm
by bob sterman
EACLucifer wrote: Sun Dec 18, 2022 2:15 pm
...And Russian nuclear doctrine only allows for first use when the survival of the state is threatened.
That threshold was in the old 1993 doctrine and 1997 "concept "- the current doctrine allows first use "
in response to large-scale aggression utilizing conventional weapons in situations critical to the national security of the Russian Federation."
https://www.armscontrol.org/act/2000-05 ... y-doctrine
http://www.nuclearfiles.org/menu/key-is ... cy/rmd.htm
Not going to get into a speculative would he / wouldn't he discussion - but the doctrine does allow it for threats less severe than those that threaten the survival of the state.
Re: What is NATO for then?
Posted: Sun Dec 18, 2022 3:27 pm
by EACLucifer
bob sterman wrote: Sun Dec 18, 2022 3:04 pm
EACLucifer wrote: Sun Dec 18, 2022 2:15 pm
...And Russian nuclear doctrine only allows for first use when the survival of the state is threatened.
That threshold was in the old 1993 doctrine and 1997 "concept "- the current doctrine allows first use "
in response to large-scale aggression utilizing conventional weapons in situations critical to the national security of the Russian Federation."
https://www.armscontrol.org/act/2000-05 ... y-doctrine
http://www.nuclearfiles.org/menu/key-is ... cy/rmd.htm
Not going to get into a speculative would he / wouldn't he discussion - but the doctrine does allow it for threats less severe than those that threaten the survival of the state.
Please stop quoting outdated doctrines from twenty years ago. The current wording is usually reported as "in the event of aggression against the Russian Federation with the use of conventional weapons
when the very existence of the state is in jeopardy." (emphasis mine).
And I'm not saying we should push the limits of their doctrine, I'm saying we are nowhere near the most tenuous edges of it - and that includes the older version you've quoted too, and still won't be if we supply Ukraine absolutely every weapon we could aside from nukes/ICBMs.
Re: What is NATO for then?
Posted: Sun Dec 18, 2022 3:53 pm
by temptar
Herainestold wrote: Sun Dec 18, 2022 1:47 pm
bjn wrote: Sun Dec 18, 2022 6:22 am
The question is, why should Russia be the only country that needs to feel secure? I’m sure the Chechens are happy that Grozny was destroyed so that Putin could sleep a bit better in his bed. Moldovans and Georgians too.
What was the term? Oh yes. “f.ck off Tankie.”
Pandering to the aggressor as if they are some victim is sickening.
Because he has nukes.
Dude, if the guy doesn’t feel secure with nukes, he ain’t ever going to feel secure.
Re: What is NATO for then?
Posted: Sun Dec 18, 2022 10:58 pm
by TopBadger
temptar wrote: Sun Dec 18, 2022 3:53 pm
Herainestold wrote: Sun Dec 18, 2022 1:47 pm
bjn wrote: Sun Dec 18, 2022 6:22 am
The question is, why should Russia be the only country that needs to feel secure? I’m sure the Chechens are happy that Grozny was destroyed so that Putin could sleep a bit better in his bed. Moldovans and Georgians too.
What was the term? Oh yes. “f.ck off Tankie.”
Pandering to the aggressor as if they are some victim is sickening.
Because he has nukes.
Dude, if the guy doesn’t feel secure with nukes, he ain’t ever going to feel secure.
Guy has his own personal guards, chefs, lives in a fortress and doesnt feel secure. But thems the breaks when you are at the pinnicle of the mafia.
He'd be safer had he not gotten into Ukraine, but he has, its going badly and his minions can scent blood.
Re: What is NATO for then?
Posted: Sat Dec 24, 2022 2:58 pm
by jdc
The Russians have just remembered that Kazakhstan has US military biolabs; better threaten to invade a fellow CSTO member:
https://twitter.com/Gerashchenko_en/sta ... 2688136192
Re: What is NATO for then?
Posted: Tue Apr 04, 2023 1:04 pm
by shpalman
Finland joins NATO.
Russia says this increases the chance of a wider conflict, which it will, if those pieces of sh.t decide to invade Finland like they did Ukraine.
Re: What is NATO for then?
Posted: Tue Apr 04, 2023 1:42 pm
by Herainestold
How long until Russia moves nukes close to Finnland?
Re: What is NATO for then?
Posted: Tue Apr 04, 2023 1:44 pm
by shpalman
Russia was more likely to nuke Finland before it joined NATO, and in any case the chances of that happening have only changed from zero to zero.
Re: What is NATO for then?
Posted: Tue Apr 04, 2023 1:46 pm
by TopBadger
shpalman wrote: Tue Apr 04, 2023 1:04 pm
Finland joins NATO.
Russia says this increases the chance of a wider conflict, which it will, if those pieces of sh.t decide to invade Finland like they did Ukraine.
Hopefully Sweden won't be far behind. Turkey and Hungary are not being helpful.
Russians just spouting more claptrap, as per usual.
Re: What is NATO for then?
Posted: Tue Apr 04, 2023 1:59 pm
by shpalman
Inconvenient that Russia would have to move the nukes closer to Finland, you'd think they could attach rockets to them or something instead of flinging them over the border with a trebuchet.
Re: What is NATO for then?
Posted: Tue Apr 04, 2023 2:10 pm
by Grumble
shpalman wrote: Tue Apr 04, 2023 1:59 pm
Inconvenient that Russia would have to move the nukes closer to Finland, you'd think they could attach rockets to them or something instead of flinging them over the border with a trebuchet.
Maybe they’ll walk them over the border, using those backpack nukes.
Re: What is NATO for then?
Posted: Tue Apr 04, 2023 2:56 pm
by Herainestold
Well they would need a visa, and the Finns aren't issuing them anymore.
The obvious point is intimidation, thus Russians driving big lorries around Belarus, that may or may not contain nukes.
The problem is normalizing nukes as a pressure tactic, which both NATO and Russia are doing, that just makes their use more likely.
Re: What is NATO for then?
Posted: Tue Apr 04, 2023 3:57 pm
by JQH
When have NATO used nukes as a pressure tactic?
Re: What is NATO for then?
Posted: Tue Apr 04, 2023 5:13 pm
by Herainestold
JQH wrote: Tue Apr 04, 2023 3:57 pm
When have NATO used nukes as a pressure tactic?
NATO has nukes in numerous European locations.
Re: What is NATO for then?
Posted: Tue Apr 04, 2023 5:15 pm
by shpalman
Herainestold wrote: Tue Apr 04, 2023 5:13 pm
JQH wrote: Tue Apr 04, 2023 3:57 pm
When have NATO used nukes as a pressure tactic?
NATO has nukes in numerous European locations.
Putin attacked a non-NATO country because he's a cowardly piece of sh.t.
Re: What is NATO for then?
Posted: Tue Apr 04, 2023 5:33 pm
by dyqik
Herainestold wrote: Tue Apr 04, 2023 5:13 pm
JQH wrote: Tue Apr 04, 2023 3:57 pm
When have NATO used nukes as a pressure tactic?
NATO has nukes in numerous European locations.
NATO includes two European nuclear armed powers, so that's hardly a pressure tactic. It's just NATO existing.
Re: What is NATO for then?
Posted: Wed Apr 05, 2023 10:11 am
by TopBadger
JQH wrote: Tue Apr 04, 2023 3:57 pm
When have NATO used nukes as a pressure tactic?
Herainestold lack of reply to your question tells you the answer... they haven't.
Re: What is NATO for then?
Posted: Wed Apr 05, 2023 11:36 am
by headshot
Herainestold wrote: Tue Apr 04, 2023 2:56 pm
Well they would need a visa, and the Finns aren't issuing them anymore.
The obvious point is intimidation, thus Russians driving big lorries around Belarus, that may or may not contain nukes.
The problem is normalizing nukes as a pressure tactic, which both NATO and Russia are doing, that just makes their use more likely.
Time for the obligatory “f.ck off”.