Belarus admits intent to enter Russia's war

[Dennis 8,391]

3 minutes ago, Mr Mendes said:

It’s not that NATO isn’t allowed to do anything it’s that they don’t want to. They want to avoid a full scale war and because the Ukraine isn’t “one of them”, they’re more than content to provide some resources and funds. 

I’m not saying that them being passive is right (I don’t think we need to be at war with anyone, but I agree NATO could be more aggressive short of war), but that’s why things are happening the way they are. Nobody wants a war with Russia, and they will avoid that until it is absolutely impossible to. 

Oh okay, so now we're not just afraid of Russia, but Russia's allies also. Cool!

I guess we're showing that the best way to get what you want from the West is to act like an unhinged madman. And suddenly everyone will let you, and your allies do whatever the heck you want.

[FfFfFfFF 58,358]

28 minutes ago, Dennis said:

I propose that NATO for once uses deterrance and warn Belarus, which is a sovereign state, according to international law and say that if they invade Ukraine, NATO will intervene. They will most likely back down. The last thing Putin needs right now is more fronts.

If the U.S was able to use deterrance against China on the issue of Taiwan and China is much stronger than Russia, there is no reason why NATO can't do the same with Ukraine. Biden literally said that U.S would help Taiwan if China invades. Did that trigger WW3?

Use deterrance when it has a chance of ensuring peace. Backing down and being pussies gave us this crisis that we're in right now. And there are some people who still stupidly think that this the right track to continue on.

 

China didn't invade Taiwan in the first weeks after Biden sent a warning, however this doesn't mean the window for that to happen closed. In fact yes, China will more likely than not make a move on Taiwan sometime the following decades.

Belarus is independent according to international law, yes, but in reality is not. Decisions are taken based on reality, both Russia and the West know of the status of Belarus. Sadly, we have no definitive way to say the warning will deter Belarus from joining the war rather than trigger WW3.

[Dennis 8,391]

10 minutes ago, FfFfFfFF said:

China didn't invade Taiwan in the first weeks after Biden sent a warning, however this doesn't mean the window for that to happen closed. In fact yes, China will more likely than not make a move on Taiwan sometime the following decades.

Belarus is independent according to international law, yes, but in reality is not. Decisions are taken based on reality, both Russia and the West know of the status of Belarus. Sadly, we have no definitive way to say the warning will deter Belarus from joining the war rather than trigger WW3.

And explain to me exactly how WW3 will go?

So Putin who is currently stuck in Ukraine and low on equipment will suddenly decide to drag NATO into this? Then what? He will randomly launch nuclear strikes on western capitals? As if the West will not strike back? And basically decide that the world must end because of this?

Why do we allow our imaginations to go too far? Why do we keep finding excuses for our failures to deter? The fact of the matter is, Russia is asking for Belarus help because they are STRUGGLING in Ukraine.

They don't want to create new fronts with NATO. They are testing the waters once again with these statements from Lukashenko. If they get the sense that NATO will not intervene, they'll go ahead.

Putin is smart. And he'll use a risk-benefit analysis. He will calculate that the risk of dragging NATO is too high and far outweighs whatever benefits he can get from Belarus help. But if NATO stays out of it, it's a win-win situation. He gets extra troops from Belarus.

 

[FfFfFfFF 58,358]

1 minute ago, Dennis said:

And explain to me exactly how WW3 will go?

So Putin who is currently stuck in Ukraine and low on equipment will suddenly decide to drag NATO into this? Then what? He will randomly launch nuclear strikes on western capitals? As if the West will not strike back? And basically decide that the world must end because of this?

Why do we allow our imaginations to go too far? Why do we keep finding excuses for our failures to deter? The fact of the matter is, Russia is asking for Belarus help because they are STRUGGLING in Ukraine.

They don't want to create new fronts with NATO. They are testing the waters once again with these statements from Lukashenko. If they get the sense that NATO will not intervene, they'll go ahead.

 

I don't know the specifics on what will happen  He may announce that he is moving into Lithuania to take the Suwalki Gap/ the Baltics as a whole (which are actually pretty small countries) as he announces a draft of all men of fighting age of Russia's population of 144M people. 

Russia is not doing well and there is no denying in that.  However, I think is dangerous to fall in the trap of completely undermining any possibility of Russia re-ansembling its forces. They are still pushing into Ukraine and just took Severodonetsk and Lysychansk. Even though they advance slowly the sanctions seemingly cannot stop and still have the resources to go on.

[Debithius 6,056]

57 minutes ago, Dennis said:

Jesus christ, I'm sick of this take and people who have these insensitive takes. Ukrainians are being massacred and somehow any form of help even a verbal warning is considered "WW3". Go read history. Was it de-escalation that triggered WW2? Or was it constant concessions made to Hitler that allowed him to grab more and more land?

Weakness begets aggression. You have to draw a red line and use deterrance. When you show yourself to be weak and pushed around, you only make further aggression more likely.

Russia just announced that they'll give Belarus nuclear missiles this summer. Who knows, next thing they'll give Iran nuclear-weapons and so on. WW3 is becoming less likely right? The more we back down and allow Russia to do whatever they want, the safer we are right?

And I am tired of everyday people wanting to push for a world war and telling NATO what to do when these exact same people would choose to not even fight it. And how is it that you still don't understand that world War 2 was fought during different circumstances? 32 countries in NATO alone plus Russia, China and possibly many more in Asia would fight each other with nuclear weapons available. NATOs thing is to shield itself and nobody else outside of it and NATO is actually not obligated to do anything either. Thats why it is called a defensive alliance, going to war against Russia would just prove him and the rest of the world that NATO is an offensive alliance and would cause more harm than good.

Yeah, I get it, Ukraine is getting massacred and the west is supplying Ukraine with every bit of help possible at this moment. Bombing Russia or going to any type of direct attack would cause a devastating shockwave throughout the entire world too. This is not just some "Go in and fight" thing.

[Dennis 8,391]

11 minutes ago, FfFfFfFF said:

I don't know the specifics on what will happen  He may announce that he is moving into Lithuania to take the Suwalki Gap/ the Baltics as a whole (which are actually pretty small countries) as he announces a draft of all men of fighting age of Russia's population of 144M people. 

Russia is not doing well and there is no denying in that.  However, I think is dangerous to fall in the trap of completely undermining any possibility of Russia re-ansembling its forces. They are still pushing into Ukraine and just took Severodonetsk and Lysychansk. Even though they advance slowly the sanctions seemingly cannot stop and still have the resources to go on.

So, while struggling in Ukraine, he will just decide that it's the best idea right now, to open a 2000km front with NATO? After 1500 of his tanks got destroyed and he had to bring new tanks literally from Siberian regiments.

Is this the best decision he would make right now? Of course not.

You have to be realistic. Putin does not want confrontation with NATO right now. He will only push as far as NATO allow themselves to be pushed. The moment NATO draws a red line, he will stop. So before this new war starts, NATO must draw a red line. They are currently testing the waters like they were doing in the early weeks of February. And it's our chance to avoid a new conflict. Because if it starts, Putin and Lukashenko will not want to be humiliated by white peacing.

[Dennis 8,391]

5 minutes ago, Debithius said:

And I am tired of everyday people wanting to push for a world war and telling NATO what to do when these exact same people would choose to not even fight it. World War 2 was fought during different circumstances. 32 countries in NATO alone plus Russia, China and possibly many more in Asia would fight each other with nuclear weapons available. NATOs thing is to shield itself and nobody else outside of it and NATO is actually not obligated to do anything either. Thats why it is called a defensive alliance, going to war against Russia would just prove him and the rest of the world that NATO is an offensive alliance and would cause more harm than good.

Yeah, I get it, Ukraine is getting massacred and the west is supplying Ukraine with every bit of help possible at this moment. Bombing Russia or going to any type of direct attack would cause a devastating shockwave throughout the entire world too. This is not just some "Go in and fight" thing.

Oh China? Where exactly did China say that they will help Belarus if they invade Ukraine?

Why are you taking things too far. Nobody is asking for Russia to be bombed right now. We are asking for NATO to use deterrance and draw a red line for BELARUS not Russia. And this is defensive deterrance. Poland is a member of NATO and has the right to feel threatened by Belarus expanding militarily on its border.

You are just hell bent on finding far-fetched excuses and hypotheses on why we should do nothing.

And as I said, years of backing down only made the world more instable and WW3 more likely. Let's continue on this path and we'll inevitably have WW3. You'll never learn I guess. I mean you're the same person who said in the other thread that we shouldn't even sanction Russia. So why bother arguing with you i guess. Your position is very clear.

 

[FfFfFfFF 58,358]

2 minutes ago, Dennis said:

So, while struggling in Ukraine, he will just decide that it's the best idea right now, to open a 2000km border with NATO? After 1500 of his tanks got destroyed and he had to new tanks literally from Siberian regiments.

Is this the best decision he would make right now? Of course not.

You have to be realistic. Putin does not want confrontation with NATO right now. He will only push as far as NATO allow themselves to be pushed. The moment NATO draws a red line, he will stop. So before this new starts, NATO must draw a red line. They are currently testing the waters like they were doing in the early weeks of February. And it's not our chance to avoid a new conflict. Because it starts, Putin and Lukashenko will not want to be humiliated by white peacing.

He may do that, assuming he won't is taking a chance. With a full draft he may feel emboldened to do that, as of now he only uses a limited number of Russian soldiers against Ukrainian men defending their localities. And even so, Russia continues to make small or sometimes moderate gains daily. I follow pro-Russian accounts on Twitter and they often mention how according to some Russia was running out of resources since March, however it continued to take new settlements each day. And the thing is, they are right. 

[Dennis 8,391]

7 minutes ago, FfFfFfFF said:

He may do that, assuming he won't is taking a chance. With a full draft he may feel emboldened to do that, as of now he only uses a limited number of Russian soldiers against Ukrainian men defending their localities. And even so, Russia continues to make small or sometimes moderate gains daily. I follow pro-Russian accounts on Twitter and they often mention how according to some Russia was running out of resources since March, however it continued to take new settlements each day. And the thing is, they are right. 

I mean we're always taking a chance. By imposing harsh sanctions we're taking a chance that Putin will randomly strike western capitals. By freezing 400B$ of russian money, we're taking such chance. The question is, how realistic and probable such chance is?

A nuclear strike isn't risk-free for Putin. If he uses nuclear weapons he has a very strong possibility of alienating China and India. And he understands that. You think that India and China will remain neutral? Of course not. Pacifism is very entrenched in Chinese society. And it'll be much harder for Xi to defend alliance with Russia if they start using nukes, endangering everyone including China itself since they're on the border.

Putin would love to use nukes. But he's not stupid. He knows the repercussions.

As for running out of resources? No one said that the russian army will come to a halt. But they keep resorting to older weapons and stockpile. It goes to show that they have stockpile constraints. Of course they won't allow themselves to dip below 50%. But you get the point.

[Debithius 6,056]

7 minutes ago, Dennis said:

Oh China? Where exactly did China say that they will help Belarus if they invade Ukraine?

Why are you taking things too far. Nobody is asking for Russia to be bombed right now. We are asking for NATO to use deterrance and draw a red line for BELARUS not Russia. And this is defensive deterrance. Poland is a member of NATO and has the right to feel threatened by Belarus expanding militarily on its border.

You are just hell bent on finding far-fetched excuses and hypotheses on why we should do nothing.

And as I said, years of backing down only made the world more instable and WW3 more likely. Let's continue on this path and we'll inevitably have WW3. You'll never learn I guess. I mean you're the same person who said in the other thread that we shouldn't even sanction Russia. So why bother arguing with you i guess. Your position is very clear.

 

Maybe you are the one who should read some history and do some research about relationships between nations You clearly don't understand what's going on outside of the Russian-Ukranian war and you apparently don't know how countries not even involved in the war will be getting dragged into it. 

You think Russia is going to stop if NATO sends 300k soldiers to their borders through Ukraine, only to draw a red line? Russia will send equally as many and ready their nukes. And what do you think will happen then? This will most definitely lead to a direct conflict between NATO and Russia.

[NCgaga 4,345]

4 hours ago, Dennis said:

This is the direct result of NATO passiveness. They should disband. They're useless. They're so quick to bomb Libya and **** but can't draw a redline for Belarus INSIDE EUROPE?

They should come out urgently and say "if Belarus invades Ukraine, we will strike Belarus". Dictators only speak the language of force. 

They are dealing with the country with a leader who is unhinged and has access to half the world’s nuclear weopens. NATO can’t just immiediately attack Russia- full out war has to be a last resort when dealing with Russia/China/USA. 

[Dennis 8,391]

5 minutes ago, NCgaga said:

They are dealing with the country with a leader who is unhinged and has access to half the world’s nuclear weopens. NATO can’t just immiediately attack Russia- full out war has to be a last resort when dealing with Russia/China/USA. 

But also NATO can't let him use the "madman theory" without any red lines, especially when this western approach hasn't worked for the last 10 years and only resulted in more russian aggressions. Next you know, is baltics and poles gettings massacred and westerners be like "we cant have ww3 lets just make a deal and give them ex soviet territory"

[NCgaga 4,345]

1 minute ago, Dennis said:

But also NATO can't let him use the "madman theory" without any red lines, especially when this western approach hasn't worked for the last 10 years and only resulted in more russian aggressions. Next you know, is baltics and poles gettings massacred and westerners be like "we cant have ww3 lets just make a deal and give them ex soviet territory"

There are steps to everything. First is diplomacy, next is sanctions, then it escalates from there. What would you suggest happens with minimal casualties and less consequences for the immediate neighbors of Russia if the West suddenly attacks? 

[Dennis 8,391]

Just now, NCgaga said:

There are steps to everything. First is diplomacy, next is sanctions, then it escalates from there. What would you suggest happens with minimal casualties and less consequences for the immediate neighbors of Russia if the West suddenly attacks? 

We're not attacking. We're trying to use deterrance first. We can say something along the lines "if Belarus attacks Ukraine, NATO will convene and we will consider military action against Belarus". Now, this statement in itself could save us the escalation and Belarus will most likely back down. At the same time, even if people don't want to committ to a war, the use of the word "consider" leaves a way out of it.

This is part of diplomacy. Sometimes you have to make offers, sometimes you have to make threats.

[FfFfFfFF 58,358]

21 minutes ago, Dennis said:

I mean we're always taking a chance. By imposing harsh sanctions we're taking a chance that Putin will randomly strike western capitals. By freezing 400B$ of russian money, we're taking such chance. The question is, how realistic and probable such chance is?

A nuclear strike isn't risk-free for Putin. If he uses nuclear weapons he has a very strong possibility of alienating China and India. And he understands that. You think that India and China will remain neutral? Of course not. Pacifism is very entrenched in Chinese society. And it'll be much harder for Xi to defend alliance with Russia if they start using nukes, endangering everyone including China itself since they're on the border.

Putin would love to use nukes. But he's not stupid. He knows the repercussions.

As for running out of resources? No one said that the russian army will come to a halt. But they keep resorting to older weapons and stockpile. It goes to show that they have stockpile constraints. Of course they won't allow themselves to dip below 50%. But you get the point.

I never said he will use nukes from the get go. WW3 will absolutely begin as a conventional war. As for China, watch them go even closer to Russia, moreover China and US will eventually face other in a direct conflict, the question is when. 

You are right that we should asses risks objectively, however that means recognizing the difference between economic sanctions and a conditional declaration of war against Belarus.