[RD] Is NATO a threat to Russia? If so, how?

[EvaDK]

On the economy you can look up the "western" IMF, or any number of websites. They all agree.
Moreover, you can compare Russia's ability to scale up its military industry with the total failure of all nato countries to do the same.
A comparison of industrial potential, real industry not GDP, was enough to predict the outcome of this war at the start. Digital derivatives do not produce war material. Industrial workers and inputs do.

So, how come the T-14 Armata production line hasn't even been built yet? How come only ~30 Sukhoi Su-57s have been produced since 2019? The majority of output leaving Russian factories at the moment, seem to be mothballed tanks, APCs and IFVs from the Soviet era being repurposed.

Russia inherited the bulk of its present military hardware from the Soviet Union stockpiles after the USSR collapse of 1991/92. Present day Russia didn't produce it.

is russia a gas station with nukes?

Considering the state of Russian refineries and Putin's ban of gasolin exports, perhaps the metaphor should read 'an oil well with nukes' instead.

 

[REDY]

In any modern war the side dropping the most explosives on the other side causes the most casualties. Even only looking at the ration of explosives used by either side allows for a check on the numbers being put forward by either side. There was projection all right: wherever Ukraine (NATO, actually) claimed it was killing 10x more russian soldiers, the ration of explosives used was the reverse - and that much was acknowleged because it was necessary to justify continuing to transfer more stocks to ukraine. Then how could thh casualty ration be against Russia? It couldn't, it was a lie. The reality is what is only now being talked about, Ukraine is running out of men because it was the side suffering horrendous losses in the front lines.

I am not much into military, it seems as a good point.
On the other hand Russians always had in previous wars both quantities - more explosives and more casualties.
To liberate (russian word for destroy) town completely how is it on videos you need much more explosives than to liberate armies.

 

[Verbose]

I am not much into military, it seems as good point.
On the other hand Russians always had in previous wars both quantities - more explosives and more casualties.
To liberate (russian word for destroy) town completely how is it on videos you need much more explosives than to liberate armies.

No it depends on the quality of the targeting data. Drop the explosives in the wrong spot rather than the right spot makes all the difference.

 

[EnglishEdward]

Russia needs to put 30% of its budget to sustain its war production.

West will do it with 3-4%. Problem in a democracy is to sell to the voting people those +2% in war production.

What is this, blaming it on the people now?

In most western countries that I know of, the political class has never even tried to sell it to the people.

That is because they are all controlled by financial capitalists that worship the money god and top
social drawer status to the extent that they regard real investment in manufacturing capability and
goods and a patriotic military as some sort of moral perversion and an offence to their money god.

 

[Kyriakos]

If it is an effort in our name (the public in each country), indeed at the very least it should be known that the public supports it. And if we wish to contrast the west to Russia, we shouldn't act as if politicians/government is in obvious tautology with the will of the public on any given issue automatically.
I expect there to be a very clear majority of support of this in countries that border Russia or hate it due to being in the soviet block up to 3 decades ago, but those aren't the majority in "the west" or even in the Eu.

After ww2, I read that most people expected another massive world war to break out in a few years. After ww1, on the other hand, there was the idea that it would end all wars. When you think war is impossible, and thus escalate in other ways, it makes it easier for it to happen. I don't envy anyone caught up in such a war.

 

[Gedemon]

What is this, blaming it on the people now?

In most western countries that I know of, the political class has never even tried to sell it to the people.

That is because they are all controlled by financial capitalists that worship the money god and top
social drawer status to the extent that they regard real investment in manufacturing capability and
goods and a patriotic military as some sort of moral perversion and an offence to their money god.

the opposite, blaming it on dictatures that their people have no say in the war their leaders are waging, if they want to raise the military budget to 30% they can.

I'm not the one being proud about dictature deciding to put 30% on its budget while saying the west is weak as it can't follow up immediately here, ignoring that dictatures and democracies don't work the same way.

If democracies are slower to follow, their are reasons, and good ones if I need to state the obvious.

 

[EnglishEdward]

@ Gedemon

I cannot speak for France, but UK governments have habitually engaged
in wars, and many other dubious things, without consulting their voters at all.

 

[Gedemon]

IMO it's more about surviving (in a political way) from the consequences of those actions in the next elections.

In the current context, the more one increase its army budget to help Ukraine at the expense of other budgets (or by raising taxes), the more votes will go for a party that will stop the help to Ukraine.

So if one really want to help on the long term, one has to make sure the majority of the population is behind that choice, and to be sure of how much they are ready to support it, because elections are rarely won with 88.48%, and a relative small part of indecisive people switching one way or the other can make a huge difference.

 

[Kyriakos]

On the positive side, you can make use of "party x is really promoted by Russia, so they aren't really for our country", to (try to) make do with unpopularity of measures.
Getting potentially involved in a war, or escalating your involvement in it while not being actively at war, shouldn't be just to be judged every 4 or 5 years in a general election.

France possibly had a sort of understanding with Russia in Africa, up to 2022 etc. Latest developments are by now explicit, such as Senegal's new leader openly accusing France of colonialism. You can be in Nato, and work with Russia - some still do, without sanctions etc.

 

[Gedemon]

Getting potentially involved in a war, or escalating your involvement in it while not being actively at war, shouldn't be just to be judged every 4 or 5 years in a general election.

Still better than not being judged and do as you please as long as you live. If Russia was a real democracy, the war would have stopped long before the last election campaign started.

 

[Kyriakos]

That Russia is not a real democracy, doesn't mean it is good for no real democracy to exist here either, or that it's a fine idea to pretend those in government have a blank cheque to up to lead us to war.

 

[Verbose]

On the positive side, you can make use of "party x is really promoted by Russia, so they aren't really for our country", to (try to) make do with unpopularity of measures.
Getting potentially involved in a war, or escalating your involvement in it while not being actively at war, shouldn't be just to be judged every 4 or 5 years in a general election.

France possibly had a sort of understanding with Russia in Africa, up to 2022 etc. Latest developments are by now explicit, such as Senegal's new leader openly accusing France of colonialism. You can be in Nato, and work with Russia - some still do, without sanctions etc.

Then the simplest solution is of course to get rid of those pesky elections, the whole political compromise checks-and-balances thing.

Which is also the messaging from Putin and Xi and the like. The west is weak. Democracy is weak, and will fail. So that clears the way for the kind of future that is theirs.

Putin is just putting that theory into practice – maybe a bit prematurely and disorganized. But if the theory is sound, it should all come right in the end. That is what we are being told from the other side.

 

[Gedemon]

That Russia is not a real democracy, doesn't mean it is good for no real democracy to exist here either, or that it's a fine idea to pretend those in government have a blank cheque to up to lead us to war.

That's kind of the exact opposite of what I was saying, isn't it ?

 

[Kyriakos]

Which is also the messaging from Putin and Xi and the like. The west is weak. Democracy is weak, and will fail. So that clears the way for the kind of future that is theirs.

You should ask r16 about a nice currently ruling political party quote likening elections to a bus, which can be taken out of circulation. Iirc that is a Nato country.
I also do think the "democracy is weak", while being a quote by Hitler, is simply projected to Putin, for convenience's shake.

That's kind of the exact opposite of what I was saying, isn't it ?

It's the opposite, if you limit it to Russia. It's the same, if you apply it to us (Eu).

 

[ConquestsMaster]

If it is an effort in our name (the public in each country), indeed at the very least it should be known that the public supports it. And if we wish to contrast the west to Russia, we shouldn't act as if politicians/government is in obvious tautology with the will of the public on any given issue automatically.
I expect there to be a very clear majority of support of this in countries that border Russia or hate it due to being in the soviet block up to 3 decades ago, but those aren't the majority in "the west" or even in the Eu.

After ww2, I read that most people expected another massive world war to break out in a few years. After ww1, on the other hand, there was the idea that it would end all wars. When you think war is impossible, and thus escalate in other ways, it makes it easier for it to happen. I don't envy anyone caught up in such a war.

Your vision of post-WW1 history is interesting.

Immediately after WW1, some people already predicted WW2. Ferdinand Foch famously said (according to Churchill): "This is not Peace. It is an Armistice for twenty years." Some naive idealists might have thought that it was the "war to end all war". But people familiar with Germany and European warfare correctly predicted another war. The terms of Versailles were harsh enough to cause resentment in Germany, but not enough to truly deny it the capacity to threaten European peace. A harsher peace treaty might have done a better job at preventing a future conflict. A more magnanimous one might have worked too. But this much less certain. The popularity of far-right ultranationalist ideologies compounded by the effects of the Great Depression might still have led to the rise of the NSDAP (or a similar movement).

Once the NSDAP came to power in 1933, it was obvious that another general European war was going to happen. The megalomaniac territorial ambitions outlined in Mein Kampf made it clear. In 1933 a better writer, H. G. Wells, predicted in his book The Shape of Things to Come that WW2 would start in 1940 due to a German-Polish conflict regarding Danzig (he was just one year off!).

WW2 didn't occur because people in the interwar thought that war was impossible and thus "escalated". The opposite is true. Escalations did occur, but almost unilaterally from the future Axis powers (in Manchukuo and Northern China, in the Rhineland, in Abyssynia, in Austria, in the Sudetes and in Czechoslovakia). But the leadership of these aggressive powers were keenly aware that a future world war was on its way. The goal was not to avoid it but to position themselves to come out on top. Their authoritian governments and nationalist ideologies glorifying violence allowed them to harness the work and the lives of their people to further their conquests, and to eliminate any opposition.

On the other side, in France and Britain, people and the politicians "representing" them were terrified of a new war, and were thus ready for significant concessions (as long as it involved other smaller countries) to avoid it. Their reticence for a new conflict was explained by multiple factors: a volatile political climate, the Great Depression, the memories of the toll of WW1, etc. Some politicians understood that it would likely be better to forcefully oppose the fascist powers and risk war now, rather than from a weaker position later. Their democratic forms of government made it very difficult to find the political will and electoral support (needed even outside of election season) for such policy. The difficulty of building a unified and and coordinated international coalition further complicated the issue. Their responses, if they were not outright concessions, were often limited to quasi-worthless treaties with friendly nations. The French Prime Minister Daladier was one of the signatories of the Munich Agreements, which is the quintessential demonstration of appeasement. Back in France after the Agreements he was welcomed by enthusiastic crowds. He then said to his aide: "Ah! The fools! If only they knew..." (which sounds more vulgar in French "Ah! Les cons!"). He was aware that what he just signed would have terrible consequences in the short and long term, but his hands were tied. In a way, the people's desire for peace might have led to a much worse war down the way. And even when the war started, there was little political and popular will in France to wage it aggressively into German territory early on, which might have positively changed the outcome. The situation was even more pronounced in the US, being so far from the conflict and suffering immensely from the Depression. Isolationism was very prevalent among the population despite FDR's internationalism. They had to be directly attacked on their territory at Pearl Harbor for it to become politically acceptable to join the war.

In any case, the situation today in Europe, while tense, is obviously quite different. The examples of the past are not of much use to predict the future. But there are still interesting parallels. The Western forms of government make it difficult for NATO countries to respond in a forceful and unified manner because of multiple obstacles on the home front and on the diplomatic one. Meanwhile, authoritarian Russia can seemingly send tremendous amount of its citizens to death and permanent disability for war goals that are still nebulous (they change every week, and even pro-Russian posters here disagree about them, if they ever find the courage to mention them). The US government could manufacture some popular support for its absurd "War on Terror" military adventurism by milking post-9/11 attack patriotism and by enjoying complete military and economic dominance. This kept the death toll and financial cost proportionally "low" . But today in the US, support in the population for this type of "nation-building" intervention is much lower. American popular support for a war of aggression of the scale Russia is currently fighting in Ukraine would probably be very low.

The final interesting parallel is about escalations. In the interwar, the future Axis powers were clearly the ones escalating. And the future Allies were often reactive rather than proactive. At times they were even conciliatory towards the countries using violence to escalate. The same can be said of NATO European countries today regarding the Ukrainian conflict. Russia has consistently escalated with violence to reach its goals: in Crimea, the Donbas and then with its full-scale invasion. Ukraine choosing its own foreign policy is not an "escalation". Ukraine defending its borders (as recognized by Russia itself until it changed its mind) is not an "escalation". European countries sending military and financial aid to defend these borders is not a significant "escalation". I don't know if Putin thinks or expects Western democracy to be weak. But I'm sure he'd be glad if the fears of dangerous consequences from Western "escalations" meant less Western support for Ukraine. However, the entire history of the Cold War was about the two superpowers arming proxies to fight the other and it never led to a world war.

There has been historically a lot of use of propaganda to make words seem meaningless. Invading a country is peaceful and non-escalatory. Defending your country is a bellicose escalation. And the same technique is applied to governments (e.g. "there is no real democracy, all forms of governments are worthless", "there's nothign worth fighting for", etc.). What's notable from Russian-affiliated propaganda is that it almost never claims to fight for something good. In the hundreds of pages on this forum and elsewhere, and on Russian official channels, almost all conversation is about how others are just as bad or how defending against Russia will lead to terrible consequences. It's all about how everything is sh*t and how it can get even worse. Makes you miss the Cold War. As laughable and dishonest as they might be, at least liberal internationalism and proletarian internationalism claim to stand for something good.

 

[Comrade Ceasefire]

When politicians make decisions that are not supported by the majority, they are providing "strong leadership".
When they change their decisions because the majority force them too, they are "bending to the will of the people".

 

[ConquestsMaster]

There has been historically a lot of use of propaganda to make words seem meaningless. Invading a country is peaceful and non-escalatory. Defending your country is a bellicose escalation. And the same technique is applied to governments (e.g. "there is no real democracy, all forms of governments are worthless", "there's nothign worth fighting for", etc.). What's notable from Russian-affiliated propaganda is that it almost never claims to fight for something good. In the hundreds of pages on this forum and elsewhere, and on Russian official channels, almost all conversation is about how others are just as bad or how defending against Russia will lead to terrible consequences. It's all about how everything is sh*t and how it can get even worse. Makes you miss the Cold War. As laughable and dishonest as they might be, at least liberal internationalism and proletarian internationalism claim to stand for something good.

Case in point:

When politicians make decisions that are not supported by the majority, they are providing "strong leadership".
When they change their decisions because the majority force them too, they are "bending to the will of the people".

 

[innonimatu]

France possibly had a sort of understanding with Russia in Africa, up to 2022 etc. Latest developments are by now explicit, such as Senegal's new leader openly accusing France of colonialism. You can be in Nato, and work with Russia - some still do, without sanctions etc.

African leaders accuse France of colonialism all the time, that by itself is meaningless. What is meaningful is that other countries are getting into France's old turf. The US itself started it, backstabbed the french. As usual. But I won't be one pitying the french, they got a taste of what they themselves did do many times. But the chinese and ths russians are increasingly exercising influence there, after some 30 years when they had all but vanished (1980s-2010s). And other minor countries are doing it also, in the purely economic sphere. That is good for african states, they get to play these countries, their offers and deals, againts each other and get a better one in the end. If they avoid the danger of some simply resorting to force to wreck the place and deny it to the adversaries.

About Urkaine. It seems that the terrorist attack in Moscow finally managed to really enrage russian leadership. It looks like the gloves are coming off concerning the war inside Ukraine, and the disposition to immediately strike at any meddlers into it. Macron chose a very bad time for his posturing. I do not think he's follish enough to even attempt to place french soldeirs officially inside Ukraine, was just playing already the blame game for the defeat. But I now think that if he does, and they go, they are now very likely to get a worse fate than being ignored and arrested later for repatriation.

 

[banzay13]

What I don't understand is what does this have to do with Democracy? As noted above, NATO/US countries did not produce a playback before bombing another country on some far-fetched pretext.
If you are an ally - you can indiscriminately bomb cities, you can organize a naval blockade that will cause famine, you can even kill and dismember a journalist on the territory of another country (NATO member) or you can organize "genocide" (although I personally would not use such a strong word in this case, although it is certainly close to it) in the Gaza Strip. "As a Nicaraguan might say, he's a sonofabitch but he's ours" (c). The issue is not the structure of the state. How many African countries in the Western (including French) coevolution of influence have been democracies? Rhetorical question.
From Putin Munich Speech 2007: Putin was particularly concerned about "the hypertrophied use of force in international affairs - military force - force that plunges the world into the abyss of successive conflicts". At the same time, Putin emphasized that attempts to interfere in internal affairs, much less use force, do not solve problems, but only aggravate them and bring them to a new level. "It is obvious that such interference does not at all contribute to the maturation of truly democratic states. On the contrary, it makes them dependent and, as a consequence, politically and economically unstable." Libya, Syria, the birth of ISIS - the consequences of such policies.
In April 2008, the NATO summit decided on a Membership Action Plan for Ukraine and Georgia, which means that Russia's objections to the indivisibility of security (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indivisible_security) were ignored. Inspired by this, it seems that Saakashvili decided to start a war with the breakaway territories from the collapse of the USSR.
In response to NATO's continued expansion to the east of Europe, NATO's decision in 2008, the construction of missile defense bases (interceptor missiles against ICBMs), and the events in Georgia in 2010, Russia listed NATO's expansion as a military threat in its military doctrine.
What happened next?Then there was Maidan in 2014, and Russia, realizing that in the near future NATO ships would be stationed in Sevastopol, not the Russian Black Sea Fleet, organized a coup in Crimea and annexation.In response, NATO has already declared Russia as a threat in its doctrine.
That is, since 2007 we have seen Russia's objections to the violation of the indivisibility of security (as Russia understands it - and it understands it as follows - no NATO bases directly next to its border).In the peace treaty discussed with Ukraine in 2022, I recall that Russia offered to return control over Donbas to Ukraine (not as a unitary state, of course. But in the West we know many examples of confederations and countries with many state languages, for some reason democratic Ukraine could not afford it), in exchange for not joining NATO and reduction of armed forces. There was also a mention that Russia had no objection to EU membership. As we can see, there were no economic or political demands. There were military demands, and the main one was not to join NATO.
So in Syria, in Africa, in Ukriane - we see a conflict between Russia and NATO, which began to brew as early as 2007 (and we can say even earlier). Now we see a China-US conflict brewing, and it is not about the unfortunate Uighurs. (natural killing of Palestinians does not bother the rulers of the US), but probably in the economic and political challenge to the West from China.
UPD.
I forgot one more thing. Chechnya.
Field commanders, especially after the second Chechen war, were quietly given asylum in the West. They were fighting for freedom, yeah. Field commanders in Donbas are murderers and war criminals. That's different.
But I remember that in the second Chechen war, the fighters were mostly Wahhabis and/or mercenaries. In the 90s, even in the village where I was on school vacation, preachers from KSA came to visit. They spread Wahhabism freely (ooh, sorry. Democracy (in the 90's the KSA was one of the main allies of the usa in the ME, so they were definitely preaching democracy (you know, stoning women till death for adultery and etc)) It is good that the activities of these "missionaries" were quickly suppressed in our republic. Or we could face second Chechnya
.

 

[Klaus Hergersheimer]

There has been historically a lot of use of propaganda to make words seem meaningless. Invading a country is peaceful and non-escalatory. Defending your country is a bellicose escalation. And the same technique is applied to governments (e.g. "there is no real democracy, all forms of governments are worthless", "there's nothign worth fighting for", etc.). What's notable from Russian-affiliated propaganda is that it almost never claims to fight for something good. In the hundreds of pages on this forum and elsewhere, and on Russian official channels, almost all conversation is about how others are just as bad or how defending against Russia will lead to terrible consequences. It's all about how everything is sh*t and how it can get even worse. Makes you miss the Cold War. As laughable and dishonest as they might be, at least liberal internationalism and proletarian internationalism claim to stand for something good.

It's a very internet-driven post-ideology world we live in now: no one can advance their own position; everyone can at least try and tear down the strawman of the other person's position.

It's very unfortunate I find that for me, an American so far away from this conflict, who's got no dog in the fight, who wants to be receptive of the Russian position, gets told NOT of the virtues of rescuing any one or any group within Donbas region...but that all of this is basically just a big counteraction against the perceived danger of NATO (more likely including some vague references to US foreign policy decisions since 1945 they don't like)...