Russia has invaded Ukraine

Originally Posted by jfman

It’s straightforward extortion, but not clear that America would follow through with it.

America is currently following through with deportation of foreign nationals in the face of judicial orders not to do so. I’m unclear on what basis the president of the United States could be forced to intervene anywhere militarily if he had chosen not do so - least of all a president who is a New York businessman, clearly knows what a protection racket looks like, and has explicitly stated that he intends to run Nato like one.

[jfman]

Originally Posted by Chris

America is currently following through with deportation of foreign nationals in the face of judicial orders not to do so. I’m unclear on what basis the president of the United States could be forced to intervene anywhere militarily if he had chosen not do so - least of all a president who is a New York businessman, clearly knows what a protection racket looks like, and has explicitly stated that he intends to run Nato like one.

Deporting people is worlds apart from not securing your treaty committed allies. It’s a zero cost activity with political upside.

It wouldn’t be like cutting and running from Afghanistan, Iraq and Ukraine. It’d be a decision that would affect America’s position in the geopolitical order for generations to come.

America has forward bases in NATO countries, and relies upon it for logistical and political support for its overseas escapades (and perhaps more importantly at present - political cover for Israel’s American funded and armed atrocities in Palestine). This fundamentally hasn’t changed.

All of which is true, but your argument rests on an assumption that Trump is a rational actor. I’m not convinced he is. He’s a narcissist who harbours deep frustrations at the obligations and state institutions that restrained him from 2017 to 2021. He has shown the inclination to tear them down repeatedly since mid January. Whether he’s pursuing revenge or whether he’s simply clearing the decks to ensure he gets his own way, he’s shown little sign of understanding the longer term consequences of his actions. He is acting out of a need for narcissistic supply. That isn’t rational.

Originally Posted by jfman

It’s straightforward extortion, but not clear that America would follow through with it.

You appear to be moving the goalposts from

there is no indication, anywhere

to

not clear that America would follow through with it

How could they follow through on something that there is no indication, anywhere, happening?

You may wish to actively review your risk assessment matrix scoring methodology…

[Pierre]

Originally Posted by Hugh

<cough cough>

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/nat...ift-rcna195089



https://www.reuters.com/world/trump-...em-2025-03-07/

You do know that other NATO members can protect/come to the aid of other NATO members, without the need of the USA to be involved, if they decide not to.

France and the U.K. have independent nuclear capability, that alone should still deter anyone attacking NATO, whether the US is onside or not.

Article 5 is relevant in this context…

Originally Posted by Pierre

You do know that other NATO members can protect/come to the aid of other NATO members, without the need of the USA to be involved, if they decide not to.

France and the U.K. have independent nuclear capability, that alone should still deter anyone attacking NATO, whether the US is onside or not.

Only the USA has nuclear umbrella treaties with other states. France has recently suggested it could do so, providing its arsenal as a nuclear umbrella for Nato-sans-USA, on the assumption that US intervention can’t be guaranteed, but has put nothing on paper. At present neither France nor the UK has any treaty obligation to respond to a nuclear attack on a third country with its own nuclear weapons, even under NATO art.5.

[Pierre]

Originally Posted by Chris

Only the USA has nuclear umbrella treaties with other states. France has recently suggested it could do so, providing its arsenal as a nuclear umbrella for Nato-sans-USA, on the assumption that US intervention can’t be guaranteed, but has put nothing on paper. At present neither France nor the UK has any treaty obligation to respond to a nuclear attack on a third country with its own nuclear weapons, even under NATO art.5.

Obligated or not, I would expect a nuclear attack on a NATO nation, even if the US did not respond ( which I doubt would be the case) to result in the other nuclear members of NATO to respond.

Otherwise…….what’s the point of NATO?

[jfman]

I don’t think we should be necessarily going all Franz Ferdinand with nuclear weapons anyway. The first question should, although inevitably won’t, be how to get off the escalation ladder.

I’m not sure “ah, but we were obliged to” stops the third one landing on us.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world...vertelemetry=1

Italian PM explains why she insists on extending NATO’s Article 5 to Ukraine

Extending NATO's Article 5 to Ukraine would help expose the bluff of Russian President Vladimir Putin, states Italian Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni during a speech in the Chamber of Deputies of Italy.

Meloni emphasized that extending NATO’s Article 5 to Ukraine “seems the simplest and most effective proposal among all others, also because it would help expose Putin’s possible bluff.”

"If Russia does not plan to invade its neighbors again, it is unclear why it should not accept security guarantees that are purely defensive," she stated.

The Italian prime minister stressed that her proposal regarding Article 5 for Ukraine "should be brought to the negotiating table."

"Peace is based on security guarantees. We must not blindly follow proposals put forward by others just because we need to decide where we stand. Our role is to participate in our own proposals. Those who have the courage to put them forward are doing something useful," Meloni noted.

Italian Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni has proposed extending NATO’s Article 5 on collective security to Ukraine without the country becoming a full member of the Alliance.

---------- Post added at 11:46 ---------- Previous post was at 09:47 ----------

Originally Posted by jfman

I don’t think we should be necessarily going all Franz Ferdinand with nuclear weapons anyway. The first question should, although inevitably won’t, be how to get off the escalation ladder.

I’m not sure “ah, but we were obliged to” stops the third one landing on us.

Perhaps not invading and occupying other countries would be a good first step to getting off the escalation ladder, by not actually bringing the escalation ladder on to the scene?

btw, remind me, which side has repeatedly threatened to escalate to delivering "instant sunshine" by changing their nuclear weapons doctrine?

[jfman]

Originally Posted by Hugh

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world...vertelemetry=1



---------- Post added at 11:46 ---------- Previous post was at 09:47 ----------



Perhaps not invading and occupying other countries would be a good first step to getting off the escalation ladder, by not actually bringing the escalation ladder on to the scene?

btw, remind me, which side has repeatedly threatened to escalate to delivering "instant sunshine" by changing their nuclear weapons doctrine?

Appreciate that would be the ideal scenario but the hypothetical as put inferred that someone had already used a nuclear weapon.

The idea of Britain being treaty bound, and actively increasing the number of countries this applies to, to ensure its own destruction without question is madness.

What if Russia used a small nuclear weapon in response to a chemical attack, dirty bomb, or similar. The official Ukrainian Government at that time, in a state of civil unrest, blames nationalist splinter groups and rogue UAF not operating under their command. Do we blast Moscow because the bit of paper says so?*

*Not saying the above is likely to happen, and yes the scenario is designed to be deliberately difficult to judge. The same could equally apply with other countries and it’s very easy to see how it ends in World War 3.

[Pierre]

Originally Posted by Hugh

Perhaps not invading and occupying other countries would be a good first step to getting off the escalation ladder, by not actually bringing the escalation ladder on to the scene?

Perhaps Putin saw us invading and occupying Iraq, and thought hmmm..........

Originally Posted by Pierre

Perhaps Putin saw us invading and occupying Iraq, and thought hmmm..........

Us? Nothing to do with the UK.

[TheDaddy]

Originally Posted by Maggy

Us? Nothing to do with the UK.

Think it did involve the Uk

Originally Posted by Pierre

Perhaps Putin saw us invading and occupying Iraq, and thought hmmm..........

Wow, that’s impressive - I haven’t seen that big a stretch since Saturday 1st February 1975, at RAF Cosford.

That was Geoff Capes warming up for the Shot Put at the U.K. Indoor Athletic Championships…