I did not write a 1.0 as I was initially reluctant to analysis anything through the fog of war and no real data. Also a bit emotionally charged a an estonian resident, I had to get clear head first
NATO involvement? That the $1M question...
There is steps along the way, like providing tanks like leopard and Abrams. Another one is for countries like Poland sending troops, which would make it an "attacker" in the conflict, the way Turkey was not "attacked" by Russia in Syria because Turkey was the one intervening.
Thing is I do not see Ukraine winning due to lower manpower, no native military production and poor usage of their ressource / corruption.
So when it start loosing the alternatives are all bad.
Admit defeat but see Taiwan (all Asia+ Middle East?) give up on hope to be protected.
Enter directly but risk nuclear conflict.
Make enter the fight only a
part of NATO like Poland but risk disintegration of EU and NATO in the process.
The whole Syria war is a mess, but from memory, the Russians bombed at a few Turkish troops. And the Turks shot down a Russian plane/fighter jet.
In both cases, even if it went to a full war, it would not have been involving NATO per NATO's articles, because Turkey was the "attacker", triggering the conflict by shooting first and getting out of its territory.
With both Putin and the West very lawyer like in their diplomatic stance, a similar thing could happen with Poland: they send troops in Ukraine, but Russian attack would not be a trigger for the whole of NATO to be call to defend Poland, as Poland would be the "attackers".
At least that one possible interpretation of the NATO treaties. There are other subtleties that could be whole article in itself
Basically completely agree with your articles 2.0 & 3.0? (Haven't yet read the1.00)
How likely do you think is NATO's direct involvement and therefore clear and open WW3?
I did not write a 1.0 as I was initially reluctant to analysis anything through the fog of war and no real data. Also a bit emotionally charged a an estonian resident, I had to get clear head first
NATO involvement? That the $1M question...
There is steps along the way, like providing tanks like leopard and Abrams. Another one is for countries like Poland sending troops, which would make it an "attacker" in the conflict, the way Turkey was not "attacked" by Russia in Syria because Turkey was the one intervening.
Thing is I do not see Ukraine winning due to lower manpower, no native military production and poor usage of their ressource / corruption.
So when it start loosing the alternatives are all bad.
Admit defeat but see Taiwan (all Asia+ Middle East?) give up on hope to be protected.
Enter directly but risk nuclear conflict.
Make enter the fight only a
part of NATO like Poland but risk disintegration of EU and NATO in the process.
Probably can and should be a whole report :D
What do you mean by "the way Turkey was not "attacked" by Russia in Syria because Turkey was the one intervening. "?
What exactly happened?
The whole Syria war is a mess, but from memory, the Russians bombed at a few Turkish troops. And the Turks shot down a Russian plane/fighter jet.
In both cases, even if it went to a full war, it would not have been involving NATO per NATO's articles, because Turkey was the "attacker", triggering the conflict by shooting first and getting out of its territory.
With both Putin and the West very lawyer like in their diplomatic stance, a similar thing could happen with Poland: they send troops in Ukraine, but Russian attack would not be a trigger for the whole of NATO to be call to defend Poland, as Poland would be the "attackers".
At least that one possible interpretation of the NATO treaties. There are other subtleties that could be whole article in itself