Adolf Hitler started planet War II due to the fact that he was not stopped. Vladimir Putin could trigger planet War III if we let him. The difference is that Hitler pursued this war at all costs. Putin would like to win against the West without the request for direct armed conflict. However, in trying to force the EU and NATO to submit, it can go besides far to avoid this war. It's up to us to let Putin cross the red line, or to knock him out of his head for further aggressive action.
Policy appeasement and its effects
On February 26, 1935, Adolf Hitler broke the peace treaty by officially establishing the German Air Force – Luftwaffe. On March 7, 1936, the freshly formed Wehrmacht entered the area of the previously demilitarized Rhineland. Taking full control of the strategically key region of the 3rd Reich. The French and British did not respond, even though the German army was toothless and in practice incapable to fight.
Hitler did not only safe the most industrialized region of Germany, from which key military resources were extracted. He could besides build along the French-German border the alleged Siegfried Line, which would prevent the French from taking any offensive action into the territory of the 3rd Reich. Especially at a time erstwhile this war is waged in the east (e.g. with Poland).
Then on 12 March 1938 Adolf Hitler again broke the Treaty of Versailles by making the annexation of Austria. besides at the passiveness of London, Paris, Rome, and Warsaw. Later, in September 1938, the Fuhrer threatened to invade Czechoslovakia. As a result, talks took place in Munich with the agreement of 30.IX.1938 under which the 3rd Reich gained Sudeta along with the full defensive infrastructure there (strengthening). Six months after this – March 15, 1939 – Wehrmacht aggressively attacked Czechoslovakia by occupying the full Czech Republic and creating puppet Slovakia. After a week, on 23 March 1939 Hitler annexed the Lithuanian Klaipeda. 2 days earlier, he besides made demands to Poland on including Gdańsk in the 3rd Reich. Only on March 26, 1939 – 3 years after the remilitarization of Rhineland – Hitler heard the first refusal. Warsaw did not bend and rejected Nazi demands, and 5 days later London and Paris officially granted Poland a safety guarantee.
The Western political strategy for Adolf Hitler's expansive attitude present is called politics appeasement. It resulted in the outbreak of planet War II. Yes, The outbreak of the most terrible human conflict on a global scale was a consequence of Western country policies. Although liable for hailing hecatombs, of course, were Adolf Hitler and Joseph Stalin. However, remember that:
- without dense manufacture and strategical natural materials extracted from the Rhineland and without Siegfried Line,
- without the Austrian-Czech industry,
- without tens of thousands of weapons originating in Austria and the Czech Republic, including modern Czech tanks,
- without a strategical advantage resulting from obtaining convenient geographical conditions for attacking Poland (and earlier after anschlussie in Czechoslovakia),
Adolf Hitler couldn't even think of starting a war against anyone. Not to mention the war against the full Western coalition of states. In September 1938, Wehrmacht had adequate ammunition to wage war for only 3 weeks. Siegfried's line was not ready to defend against a possible attack from France. The German generality was aware of all this, terrified of the anticipation of hitting III The Reich through France and was preparing to overthrow Hitler erstwhile he began threatening to strike Czechoslovakia (with safety guarantees from France and the USSR). The game was prepared and Hitler was divided by hours from the military coup. Hours during which a call was made to Berlin from London. And the Munich talks were proposed, suggesting a compromise. Hitler was a step distant from defeat erstwhile a frightened West pulled out his helping hand. The coup did not take place, and the Reich Leader of the 3rd Reich made his most crucial political triumph in the interwar period. The triumph he did not want, due to the fact that he pursued a tiny victorious war with Czechoslovakia and was furious that the West had agreed to all his demands.
There is full agreement among historians that Adolf Hitler, until the last days of peace, was convinced that at the minute he attacked Poland, the Second Republic would besides be left to itself. It was so easy for him to decide to invade Poland. Furthermore, it is worth remembering that the Fuhrer was furious on 31 March 1939 erstwhile London announced guarantees for Warsaw. The second shock suffered on 25 August 1939 erstwhile Poland and the United Kingdom concluded an alliance treaty. The German dictator in panic – at the last minute – cancelled the invasion order, which was to take place on August 26. It was not until 28 August – most likely erstwhile he again managed to convince himself that the West would not lift a finger in defence of Poland – Hitler decided to start the war on 1 September 1939.
When Britain and France entered the conflict on 3 September 1939, the German dictator was shocked again. For he inactive believed that the West Bluff, and the 3rd Reich will deal calmly and easy with lonely Poland. It happened differently, and everyone was already aware that planet War II had begun. The bones were cast. Hitler did not avoid what he feared most. War on 2 fronts. Although this situation did not halt him in 1939 (for many reasons) and it was only the beginning of the Italian front (July 1943) and then of Normandy (June 1944) during the fighting between the 3rd Reich and the USSR that pushed the balance of victory.
It is almost apparent that stopping Hitler until September 1938 would be comparatively easy, and France, the United Kingdom and the Second Republic were together stronger than the then lonely 3rd Reich. However, Hitler was allowed to increase his potential, so he could deal with Poland rapidly adequate to prevent her allies from reacting.
Later it was just worse. The victorious Hitler became dangerous to all around, and the only chance to last for many states was to join the powerful 3rd Reich. And so, Slovakia, Italy, Hungary, Romania, Serbia, Croatia, Bulgaria, Finland and even France Vichy joined the Axis.
The snowball effect caused that in 1941 (only 2 years after the start of the war!) Adolf Hitler has fundamentally become the master of Europe. In a situation where in 1938 his power in Berlin itself was on the line.
Since gaining power, Adolf Hitler has moved further and further and has created convenient conditions for himself to wage war. He did this, and yet caused war mainly for 1 reason. due to the fact that he wasn't afraid of the West and he didn't believe anyone in Paris or London would effort to halt him. And until then, he was right.
Wolf fattening – a Russian bear in fact
Events of the 20th century confirm the thesis that the stronger side is mainly liable for the escalation and possible outbreak of the armed conflict. The West of Europe was stronger than the 3rd Reich until 1939 (and 1 can even argue that including 1939). However, erstwhile Hitler gained strength and dealt with Poland, it took nearly 6 years of war, assistance from the USSR and millions of victims to defeat the 3rd Reich and its allies.
In August 2008, Russia hit Georgia. Lone Georgians were beaten militarily, but their courageous political actions were mostly initiated by Poland, Lithuania and Ukraine. Already in 2009, Americans announced the so-called. reset relations with the Russian Federation. The Americans agreed to a number of concessions against Putin, among others, they resigned from the rocket shield in Poland and the Czech Republic and liquidated the 2nd Fleet US Navywho was liable for overseeing the Russian North Fleet. Germany, on the another hand, started the task Nord Stream. What I have described in the text: "Reset Obama saved the planet and Poland?".
In 2014, Vladimir Putin issued an order to annex Crimea and then Russian troops entered Donbass. Seizing the area and to any point beating the Ukrainian army in the field. After the Minsk talks, Angela Merkel decided to build the same year Nord Stream II. By implementing Putin's strategical plans. While a number of sanctions were introduced, they were not besides painful for Russia. The possible of expanding Europe's dependence on Russian gas and oil supply provided Putin with a warrant that everything was going as planned. Especially since Moscow was inactive making money selling natural materials to Europe. At the same time, the German attitude convinced Putin that business with Berlin would stay in force even if Russia took control of all Ukraine.
From April 2021 Vladimir Putin had been gathering troops along the border with Ukraine. In the winter of 2021, he cut Europe off from gas supply. In December, the Russians made their unrealistic demands for NATO (not for Ukraine) and then in February 2022 tried to execute a "special operation" in Ukraine, which turned into a bloody war. It should be stressed here that Ukraine was only to be a phase of action against the West. The goal of Russia's February operation was to rapidly take over Kiev and subsequently likely annex Moldova. NATO and the EU were to be put before the facts. Ukraine and possibly Moldova were to enter full control of the Kremlin and troops of the Russian Federation would stand along the full east border of NATO and the EU. It was about further exerting force against the West. Putin fundamentally gave war to the West, but incapable to militarily defeat him, he struck arms against Ukraine. The war in Ukraine is simply a Russian substitute war (Proxy-(war) against NATO and the EU. As I explained in more item in the text: “This is our war” .
However, present there are inactive those who are convinced that after taking Ukraine, Vladimir Putin would soften and be willing to communicate with NATO. Although it is apparent that fattening and strengthening the wolf never ends well, and the beast's appetite grows as it eats. Moreover, the Russians have already lost besides much in Ukraine to let go after a possible triumph and to conclude that it has not done them any good. If the West were inactive not buying gas and oil from Russia, the situation of the Russian economy would be dramatic. Putin got active in an impossible situation. Even after taking Ukraine, he will gotta proceed to escalate and put force on the West until this 1 abolishes sanctions. Otherwise Russia will fall. On the another hand, if the West had bent and given Putin what he wanted, it would have been considered a weakness. And the people of the Kremlin, for Europeans' money from the sale of gas and oil, would take further steps to subjugate Europe. Furthermore, it can already be said that the West indirectly financed the invasion of 24.II.2022 without cutting Putin off from capital as early as 2014.
In the 20th century, the French and British did not want to die for Rhineland (1936). They did not want to die for Austria (III.1938). They did not stand up for Czechoslovakia (IX.1938). Consequently, they fought for Gdańsk. However, it was not territories that played the function here, but Adolf Hitler's attitude. If he had received Gdansk, the French and British would have died for Brussels, Amsterdam or yet Paris and London. Depending on erstwhile they would say stop. But would Hitler truly wage war in any scenario? As indicated at the beginning, it was most likely adequate to halt him earlier. Before October 1938, there were not one, but respective occasions.
Modern Russian propaganda tries to do everything to convince Western society that it is not worth dying for Ukraine. Just that Just as France and Britain from 1935 to 1938 had a chance to halt Hitler without a fight, so present the West can halt Vladimir Putin inactive in Ukraine. Even without the request for a direct fight. possibly 2023 will be the 21st century equivalent of September 1938. Then – in the name of peace – they decided on Munich and left Czechoslovakia to Hitler. This war started anyway.
In early 2023, Ukraine is most likely facing the most hard test. This might be the last minute to halt Putin from escalating the conflict with the West. Putin's triumph in Ukraine can assure him that he has an advantage over weak and frightened NATO. Putin’s conviction of Western weakness will encourage him to take further action to accomplish further benefits. The next victim would most likely be Moldova. Later, hybrid action against the West would be possible, especially in the Baltic States. NATO would gotta decide again: are we dying for the Baltics, or as with Ukraine, are we limited to support but without a direct fight? However, the problem would be more serious, as action against Lithuania, Latvia and Estonia would be action against NATO and the Alliance would gotta respond. A tough attitude – against earlier distance – could surprise Putin, just as the British attitude in 1939 amazed Hitler.
Putin cannot win in Ukraine due to the fact that success and assurance can lead him to the mistaken belief that he is able to straight hit NATO without any consequences. If only through hybrid action. For starters. If NATO were to proceed to retreat, "special operations" in Lithuania, Latvia or Estonia would not be excluded. This would lead to a NATO–Russia war.
At the same time, erstwhile Russia wins in Ukraine, it will be impossible to accomplish a satisfactory and lasting peace agreement on both sides. due to the fact that if NATO agrees to keep Ukraine under the Kremlin's shoe, there will always be a hazard of further escalation. Especially if the Americans had withdrawn troops from Europe. Then Putin could begin further aggressive action to subjugate the European Union and rebuild the Russian empire (via the annexation of Belarus, Moldova and then requesting a corridor to the Kaliningrad Oblast and seeking the annexation of Lithuania, Latvia and Estonia to get a convenient strategical position in the Baltic Sea). Until the Kremlin takes control of Ukraine, then it will not get the convenient situation to fight the West more directly.
It is now not crucial whether Putin is reasoning about further attacking the West or if Ukraine is going to slow down. The crucial thing is that as shortly as an chance arises to weaken the EU and NATO, it is very likely that Putin will take advantage of it. Especially since his actions so far indicate that he has the abovementioned plans and intends to implement them. so It is crucial to prevent Russia from reaching a situation where it could go 1 step further. Putin needs to be stopped in Ukraine and put out of his head any plans for the future.
Today alone next day with the full coalition
At the same time, the political situation is important. present Putin is alone. OUBZ is simply a paper creation. Even Alexander Lukashenko stands before engagement of Belarus' troops in the war in Ukraine. However, no laterAfter the business of Ukraine Putin annexed Belarus, and her troops (after mobilization) strengthen the possible of the Russian army. This possible may later besides be increased by recruits from Transnistria. Moreover, it is not excluded that in the face of the threat of a Russian invasion, Moldova would not have joined Putin itself. By expanding the mobilization pool.
At the same time, after the fall of Ukraine, Putin could tackle the pacification of politically unstable Kazakhstan. With more ease, he could regain control of all Central Asia.
Freeing your hands in Ukraine would open up options in another directions. For example Cooperation with Iran against Azerbaijan could make a more strict Russian-Iran alliance. Then the front against the West would cover the full width of the continent. From the Barents Sea to the Persian Gulf. By acting together and in a close alliance, Russia and Iran could together be tempted to block the Persian Gulf! How would Europe cope with the energy crisis?
At the same time, if the Russians could get Iran to block the Gulf (giving them military equipment and support in case of attack of local enemies) Then they could get more aid from China. Beijing – seeing Moscow's successes – would be more willing to hazard and bet on the "east" card. Especially since he would care about natural materials from Iran and Russia (in the face of Gulf blockade).
So Putin, as Hitler erstwhile did, can get a chance to become the leader of the full alliance, almost out of complete isolation internationally. Within a short time, build a supporting block or network of states subordinate to it. If that were the case, the West would not only be dealing with Putin, but with the full east bloc. How much more aggressive would Putin be if he felt he had the right strength? How much harder would it be to halt him? How much higher would it cost to defy the threat?
The situation would become highly dangerous on a global scale. Especially since Putin could not only be convinced of his advantage, but besides put (by himself) against the wall.
It is besides worth remembering that the 3rd Reich in 1939 had to wage war not only due to Hitler's ambition, but due to the fact that the Reich's finances were in a dire state. The modern Russian Federation is going down. Even after capturing Ukraine, her interior collapse is simply a substance of time. I wrote about this in the text entitled: "Russian Federation has already lost. The question is how much more harm can he do?” . Under impending collapse Putin may be desperate and effort to save the situation another war. This script will be the more likely, the more Putin will hope for the final success.
Passivity = peace?
The fear of another hecatomb of war in western Europe from 1918 to 1939 was comparablely strong as the contemporary fear of atomic war. And even bigger, due to the fact that more real. Adolf Hitler utilized these moods against pacifists. He managed to make their worst nightmare come actual – to trigger planet War II – only due to the fact that in the name of peace France and Britain remained passive and mostly submissive to any point. It was the fear of war that led to conflict. If Paris and London were to think coolly, realistically and make an effort to guess Adolf Hitler's wider political strategy, then it would most likely be tempted to make its own strategy to deal with the problem. Meanwhile, Western leaders acted reactively. The problem was resolved individually. all time we hope that gathering Hitler's demands is the last thing we request to do to yet leave Europe alone. At the same time, the same equation was thought of each time:
- Remilitarization of Rhineland? -> Passivity = Peace. consequence = War.
- Anschluss Austria? consequence = War.
- Sudet/Monachium occupation? -> Relent = peace. consequence = War.
- Czech occupation? -> Relent = peace. consequence = War.
It was completely undisclosed that it was actually the accomplishment of all 4 points that enabled Hitler to declare war. In another words, in the strategical approach of the equation looked rather the other –> inactivity = war, reaction = peace.
The West draws conclusions?
If you can't do politics appeasement leave a dry thread, but situation anno domini 2022 looked very different. The United States, Poland and the United Kingdom remembered experiences before 1939. Even before February 24, 2022 arms were delivered to Ukraine for infantry (mainly anti-tank and anti-aircraft launchers). erstwhile the conflict broke out, the aforementioned states acted actively. Hundreds of thousands of ammunition were sent to Ukraine, tens of thousands of infantry equipment, hundreds of tanks and armored vehicles and dozens of artillery systems. At the same time, the West began imposing further sanctions on the Russian Federation while freezing its abroad exchange reserves. Europe began to safe gas and oil supply from another directions at a fast pace, putting the essential infrastructure at the same time. The collection of Russian energy resources was gradually minimised.
However, it would be false to say that everything was done. erstwhile Poland sent nearly 300 tanks and the second so many armored vehicles, Western countries should already be reasoning about supplying western dense equipment. And start training Ukrainian soldiers. So, 2 or 3 months later, to deliver Ukraine another large batch of dense combat vehicles, as well as combat aircraft. This has not been done, and present there are feverish political negotiations in this area. German tanks promised late to Ukraine (178 Leopards 1) should have been there long ago.
Between April and August 2022, Ukrainians had many successes on an operational scale. possibly the belief that Kiev had already won, as well as the slowness of any countries, has contributed to the fact that present we tremble over whether Ukrainians are ready to defy another Russian offensive.
It is worth looking at the war in Ukraine and the attitude of the West from a wider perspective. Not the 1 from February 2022, erstwhile the amazed West of Europe was not ready to give strong adequate support to Ukraine. Let's decision the full intellectual ellipse aside for a second. Memory of our impressions, which propose that, for our earlier ideas, the West has already shown unity and done a large deal for Ukraine. Come on a small journey to the future:
Let us decision 50 years forward, erstwhile after school there is simply a past lesson about pre-war years. Before the 3rd major global conflict. planet War III, which broke out not many years after Putin's business of Ukraine. Imagine how the next generation, in the above-mentioned school class, gives us an assessment for their abroad policy. Will the equipment, supply and financial assistance be assessed as brave and without pardon, but failed to halt Putin from occupying Ukraine? Or will future generations measure that the West acted in an insecure way, so Putin achieved the key nonsubjective of occupying Ukraine? Which in turn led to a tragic series of events that would never have happened if Ukraine had defended itself.
Compared to the years 1935-1939, the modern policy of the West should be assessed well, but if Ukraine falls, then the final evaluation of actions will inactive should be mediocre. Especially since you can already say that The level of aid from the West to Ukraine could be much higher and the pace of giving it much higher.
In addition, the West – as I wrote in the last text It's our war! – afraid to present a hard and ambiguous political position towards Russia. On the 1 hand, actions are being taken that go importantly beyond the boundaries of the notion of neutrality (economic warfare, sanctions, training of soldiers, financial assistance, donations of military equipment), and on the another hand, Western politicians distance themselves from admitting that they are fighting indirectly against Russia. This causes Vladimir Putin to proceed and escalate the conflict in Ukraine. reasoning the West is afraid of him, and atomic blackmail is working.
You gotta convince Putin that he will not win this war in Ukraine. There's no way. However, in order for Putin to believe this, it must be demonstrated that we are ready to take whatever action is available to accomplish this objective. We must powerfully inform Putin that Dniepru line is simply a red line, apart from which NATO (or at least elected US-led states) will take very concrete steps. And this threat must be credible. Prior to the preparations and the gathering of appropriate potential.
This is where we get back to the threat. What should it look like, and at the same time what kind of action can effectively halt the Russian army from achieving strategical goals? The threat of carrying out the first atomic impact – which Putin is utilizing – would be unbelievable, unacceptable from the position of the West and, in fact, without cover. After all, everyone – in this 1 in the Kremlin – knows that the West will not start a atomic war due to the conventional invasion of NATO's unattached Ukraine. The threat of conventional troops attacking Russian territory is besides excluded. Then Putin would have no scruples to defend himself with an atom.
The threat of attacking Russian troops – wherever at sea or in Ukrainian territory – would besides be highly risky. The Western states would gotta decide on an act of aggression against Russia. Which would make it possible to retaliate again. Thus, threats to take military offensive action proceed to affect the same dilemmas.
But how do we halt Russia from moving to the right bank of Dnieper and further towards the NATO border? Especially in situations where sanctions, political isolation and support of Ukraine are not helpful?
Sanitary cordon
On the second day after the invasion of Ukraine, on 25 February exactly, I published the text: “What should be done to save Ukraine and beat Putin?”. It describes a number of political-military actions that should be carried out at the stages of the clash with Russia. I said at the time that Finland and Sweden should be included in NATO as shortly as possible. It's happening now. The text was written under the influence of the minute and with the cognition that the Russians were heading for Kiev and possibly able to get it. On the second day of the full-scale war in Ukraine, the situation seemed subdued. present we know that the Russians have failed, and the Ukrainians are fighting until now.
Nevertheless, the possible of Russians crossing the Dniepr line is inactive real. Like their triumph in the war and taking control of Kiev. Thus, the concept of action to be taken – which I described in the text a year ago – became very timely.
I already described that entering Ukraine in order to defend the western part of its territory – all the way to Kiev – may be necessary. The thought of sending a certain kind of peace mission or of creating a sanitary cordon by the troops of selected NATO states has been presented respective times. It was to be a consequence to further escalation of the conflict by Vladimir Putin. A year has passed, and the arguments put forward present do not go any further. On the contrary, they take it back.
Crown arguments against the concept of sanitary cordon look like this:
- The introduction of troops to Ukraine will start a war with Russia,
- The introduction of troops to Ukraine is an exit from NATO's safe “cokon” due to the fact that the fight against Russian troops in Ukraine does not trigger Article 5 of NATO, so the intervening states would stay alone in the face of Russian threat,
- Intervention in Ukraine would have destroyed NATO unity.
- Intervention could end in atomic war.
All the above arguments seem logical. However, raising them in the context of current developments in Ukraine and the political situation on the NATO-Russia line is wrong. All this argument is based on the situation “to this day”. In another words, a false logic mechanics arises: passivity = peace, reaction = war, which refers to the current geopolitical situation and the mediocre advancement of the Russians on the front. He completely ignores geostrategic issues and does not answer the question of what Vladimir Putin's objectives are and how does he intend to accomplish them? Thus, it does not answer the question, what happens if Russia takes control of Kiev and all Ukraine? The consequences of Putin's success were described above, but besides in erstwhile analyses.
So putting fear and emotion aside, 1 must realise that triumph in Ukraine will open up further options for aggressive abroad policy to Putin. This can all lead to direct action against NATO and the EU. Thus, it is crucial to realize that the Dniepr line along with Kiev is simply a line beyond which Russian troops cannot pass. Ukraine must defend itself and stay outside Moscow, and after the war it must be in NATO.
If so, it becomes apparent that This is the minute to halt Putin.. And here comes the basic key question for the West. What decisions must we be prepared to make to halt Putin on his way to planet War III? Is sending weapons and a safe attitude all we should do? What if that's not enough? So what's next? What another steps can or will be taken? How can the situation be tomorrow?
Critics of the thought of intervention in Ukraine indicate that this would be besides far-reaching. It might seem that way today. But what happens erstwhile the Russians decision with momentum towards Kiev and the Ukrainians cannot halt them? Here you gotta go beyond the present and the present. The key is to answer the questionwhat worst-case script could happen in Ukraine and what should we do then? Let it go? Deal with the defeat of Ukraine? Do you react?
We request to think widely, strategically and look forward to the future. Otherwise, like the West in 1939, mistakes can be made to the other effect than those we would like to avoid. For Passiveness or submission to Putin's actions does not offset the hazard of war, but increases it.
At the same time, it should be understood that The introduction of troops to Ukraine would be contrary to the appearance of defensive action. With the agreement of Ukraine, allied states could be protected by the Russian non-Western part Ukraine to Kiev. make a sanitary cordon and take a defensive stance. It would then be the Russian troops – as an aggressor who were illegally in Ukraine – that would gotta take offensive action if they wanted to proceed the offensive and accomplish strategical objectives applicable to the Kremlin. In this case, it would be the Russians who would hazard war with a much stronger opponent (because the intervention should be conducted under the aegis and in the participation of US troops).
The intervention troops of the coalitions of the countries afraid should be 100% prepared for retaliation. So that the Russians would be afraid to fight in the cognition that the reaction would crush the Russian troops in Ukraine.
Of course, in specified a scenario, the hazard of a coalition's troops fighting the Russians exists. However, the failure of the West to make the right decisions at a critical minute may consequence in a crucial increase in the likelihood of a NATO war to Russia or worse, NATO versus the East.
Korean variant
It should besides be remembered that even if there were accidental incidents and local clashes between Russia's troops and the coalition, the hazard of atomic war would inactive be low. For both parties would be in the territory of a 3rd country. Which would let negotiations to be undertaken to de-escalate the conflict. Neither organization would have a political work to show that it must defend its territory by any means possible. Neither NATO nor Russia would be affected. So even in a black script where there would be a conflict between the forces of the Coalition and Russia, we would have a repeat of the 1950-1953 Korean War. Let us callback that then, on the Korean Peninsula, the U.S. and China fought straight against each other. Mao Zedong introduced hundreds of thousands of Chinese soldiers to North Korea who attacked the United Nations troops (or, in fact, the US) and drove the coalition's forces out of North Korea. However, the direct, authoritative American-Chinese war never happened. Both sides were aware of the consequences of specified a conflict. So they destroyed their troops as part of the Korean War. Importantly, the Americans had atomic weapons at the time, while the People's Republic of China had no atomic weapons yet! However, the atom was not used, even though the American army was experiencing very hard situations on the front.
Selected West Countries– headed by the US –they must show readiness to implement the Korean scenario. Putin must be certain that the West is ready to give him a conventional conflict in Ukraine and win it. Only then will it be possible to halt the march of the Russian army and beat it out of her head to attack the coalition troops. Making Putin keep his troops in the face of the western sanitary cordon in Ukraine is completely real. The military advantage on the side of the US and the West is powerful. In the field of battlefield imaging, the doctrine of war, and above all on a technological level. In the war, conventionally, the Russians would be crushed. full dominance in space: space (information), air and sea would be guaranteed. It would be possible to gain an advantage in the cyber domain. With specified advantages – even if Putin gave a mad attack order – there might not be a clash between the land troops. These Russian ones would be destroyed from the air.
Importantly, Russian generals, based on the experience of fighting against much weaker Ukrainians, are aware of the weakness of the Russian Federation's troops towards the US and NATO. This consciousness must be exploited, not waited for the Russians to believe again in their propaganda of the fresh amia reform, which in 3-4 years will be presented again as invincible.
The real and well-supported threat of Western intervention in Ukraine, if the Russians crossed the red line, would be a tool that could halt Putin's march and lead to deescalation.
Written by: Buy a book or ebook: “Third DEKADA. The planet present and in 10 years” and find out what may be waiting for us in the coming years. In addition to the war in Ukraine, which was described in the forecast chapters.
Three DEKADA. planet present and in 10 years
(No) Atomic Balance
A reasonably common argument to indicate that passiveness is much better than active attitude is that of atomic weapons. Putin and his entourage do not hesitate to propose the readiness to usage the atom. any respond to specified threats with intellectual paralysis. Meanwhile, it should be remembered that the West has a comparable number of atomic warheads like the Russian Federation (about 6,000 of which, like the Russians, 1600 are deployed and theoretically ready for use). But bullying on this plane is not about who has a bigger arsenal. Only whose weapon is more precise and who has better defence systems.
American satellite technology is beyond Russian reach. Americans have the ability to track down and identify the right targets, and in close time to real time. The Russians can only dream of it. Moreover, the Ukrainian war exposed Russian weaknesses in the precision of targets and the failure of means of transportation (missiles). The Russians have a problem hitting even immobile targets. Russia has a problem even with its state-of-the-art technologies, as proved by a failed 2019 test in the Archangelic Oblast. erstwhile the bullet exploded on the ground causing contamination.
In the context of Russian capabilities, technological solutions, corruption as well as financial opportunities, the question arises of how many of these "ready" to usage Russian warheads, it is indeed ready. due to the fact that it costs money. Salty. Of course, the Russian atomic possible cannot be underestimated, but 1 should be aware that it may be much smaller than the 1 declared.
In addition, the United States has a modern and rather extended rocket defence system. Of course, the West as a full has no way of shooting down any warhead that would be fired in its direction. However, given the anti-missile defence, the reliability of Russian weapons systems, their accuracy, and the real – most likely lower – amount of ready-to-use warheads, this disproportion of force on the atomic level can be considerable. In favour of the West. Which is simply a state completely different from the russian Union. And then, as we remember, the Soviets did not attack the US erstwhile Kennedy ordered the detention of their ships sailing to Cuba during the alleged Cuban crisis.
It is so a completely incomprehensible usage of narrative, according to which only we should fear atomic war. After all, Putin, his surroundings and their families are exposed to specified a conflict. In the Kremlin they fear atomic war as much as in Warsaw or Washington. so the Cold War remained “cold”.
The surrender of Vladimir Putin's atomic blackmail makes no sense. The Ukrainians have pierced this balloon respective times. Let us remember that Ukraine does not have atomic weapons, yet Putin did not usage his own. Even in the face of the disaster on the front (March/April 2022), as well as the fact that the Ukrainians "attacked" territories acquired and annexed earlier by Russia. Moscow made early October joining the lands occupied during the fighting, which theoretically covered them with an atomic umbrella. A day later, 1 of the aneccated towns was reflected by Ukrainians who were conducting a counteroffensive.
The blackmail mechanics always works the same, no substance what tool the blackmailer uses. Whether it's an energy plane, military or nuclear. The aim is to benefit from minimum – preferably zero – costs. The victim's submission only leads to further demands. If we let Kiev go today, the Chisinau, Tallinn, Riga or Vilnius will become the subject tomorrow. Warsaw. Would it be wise to say "stop" only if Putin gained convenient conditions to attack Poland?
Putin must be detained in Ukraine. And the way Russians conduct politics through threats and blackmails must prove ineffective and leading to failure. Otherwise, the planet will burn. If the Russian Federation fails to learn a lesson, akin methods of action can shortly become everyday for communist China, Pakistan, Iran, Turkey and another countries that will be prepared to force them to clean up their neighbourhood.
The United States has a immense technological advantage on a military level. atomic weapons, too. The Russians know this, so they effort to put force on them where they have certain assets. For example, in the possible for tactical usage of an atom. However, that is no reason to stay passive or submissive. On the contrary, we request to show our willingness to respond to the variant of events where Putin uses the atom. And specified a demonstration was the October message of Gen. Davide Petraeus – the erstwhile CIA chief – who stated that if the Russians had utilized the atom, the Black Sea Fleet would have been destroyed and no Russian soldier or military equipment capable of fighting would have remained in Ukraine.
Coalition of stakeholders
Knowing that the situation of war in Ukraine can take place in a very unfavourable direction, as well as that the threat of intervention could halt Putin, it is worth considering what specified a threat should look like.
First of all, it would be deceptive to number on NATO as a full to be ready to take specified uncompromising action. However, US participation in the coalition of curious countries is simply a condition sine qua non specified initiatives. If Washington is not ready to intervene, the threat from the West will be neither real nor likely threatening Putin.
NATO break-up and deficiency of protection from Article 5 of the Treaty?
Assuming that the coalition would be formed under the leadership of the United States, the problem with the possible launch of Article 5 of NATO mostly becomes irrelevant. NATO is mostly the United States, especially in the context of atomic weapons. The inclusion of selected coalitions with a protective umbrella by the US and Washington's participation in the intervention would have a adequate deterrent effect.
At the same time, the argument about NATO's "breakdown" through the intervention of selected coalition states in Ukraine cannot withstand a clash with historical experiences. The 2003 attack on Iraq was carried out in a coalition of 3 states. The invasion was mainly carried out by US and UK troops, and Poland besides oars its share. Individual NATO states besides interfered in the civilian war in Libya during the arabian Spring. The Libyan interior conflict is inactive ongoing, and NATO France and Turkey support the opposing sides. In addition, there are regular tensions between Athens and Ankara. In either case, no 1 has spoken of the dissolution of the North Atlantic Pact. It is frequently pointed out that the Treaty provisions are loose adequate to weaken NATO's image as a unity willing to respond to threats. However, in certain situations, the same treaty provisions let individual members of the Pact to act independently without compromising the cohesion of NATO as a whole.
In the context of the war in Ukraine, only Hungary breaks out of the common position of NATO states. So... There is widespread knowing and acceptance in the North Atlantic Pact of the request for Ukraine's support. The differences relate to the scale of national engagement.
Any intervention by selected coalition states in Ukraine would be deprived of protection from Article 5 of NATO (although it should be protected by the US). Good. That's why NATO could stay one. For the intervention of any would not jeopardise the war effects of another countries. As a result, no 1 would gotta leave NATO in fear of the hazard of Russian retaliation. That's it. The creation of a tiny coalition of states inside NATO, ready to take the essential measures in Ukraine, would keep the coherence of the Pact. due to the fact that in the absence of unanimity,The consequences of the deficiency of action could lead to interior conflicts in NATO and trigger a process of disintegration. The anticipation to take action beyond the Treaty framework is an asset here and gives the essential flexibility in hard situations.
Uncompromising Seven
There is no uncertainty that NATO, as a whole, should work together to reduce the Russian Federation's urges, counter Putin's aggression and prevent war scenarios. Allowing Putin to hit NATO will mean defeating the North Atlantic Alliance in terms of deterrence. This is simply a script that can actually break NATO unity. Because, in the face of a real and direct threat, the individual countries of the Pact, especially those little threatened, can indeed begin to distance themselves from the rest.
On the another hand, in the case of bold action, unanimity is required, which is hard to accomplish in specified a broad group. For these reasons, taking the essential preventive action by a selected smaller coalition of states can even save NATO from interior disputes and disintegration.
In the case of the war in Ukraine, a group of countries have already emerged, which are very powerfully active in supporting Ukraine. These are the United States, Poland, the United Kingdom and the Baltic States. The result of the war in Ukraine is besides crucial for Romania. These are the 7 countries that are keenly curious in defending Kiev. It must besides be remembered that the French and Turks can besides make hard decisions.
In the case of Poland, Romania, Lithuania, Latvia and Estonia, the failure of Ukraine may mean the transfer of the fight – surely at hybrid level – to the territories of these countries. Becoming a front country will mean losing the risk-evading capital, the request for crucial financial investment in arms, and expanding dependence on the aid of allies. As a result, greater sensitivity to external suggestions. Moreover, Ukrainian business by Russians may mean mass exodus of Ukrainians. These would mainly flee to Poland, which would affect a humanitarian crisis, as well as crucial financial expenditure on the part of Warsaw. This should be avoided.
Although the United States and the United Kingdom are not at immediate risk, the geopolitical failure of Ukraine would besides be a disaster of American hegemony. For many – discussed on this blog in various entries – reasons.
The states described above should make a fast consequence coalition (NATO's peak?) that would be ready to respond immediately to Russian crossing the red lines. specified would be the usage of atomic weapons, the demolition of reactors in power plants located in Ukraine or the effort to cross Dnieper and the capture of Kiev.
In parallel, NATO as a full should safe the full east flank of the alliance. As part of the implementation of defence doctrine.
Intervention
The thought of taking – in a critical situation – intervention in Ukraine is neither a concept of entering the war nor the request for a real introduction of coalition troops to Ukraine. The point is to prepare for specified a scenario, show Putin's willingness to implement it, which is consequently to deter the Russians from going besides far. Ukraine must stay independent and independent of Moscow and Kiev must be found after the NATO war (or we will have a 3rd Russian invasion). These are the strategical goals of the West, which must be clearly communicated to the another side. In specified a way that Putin understands that he is incapable to implement plans to take control of all Ukraine and would not even effort it. At the same time, the West must show readiness to accept and surrender the impact, as well as to carry out its own operation (sanitary cordon). To this end, as I have written in the last text, NATO and individual states within this coalition should demonstrate:
- the control of the Baltic and the Black Sea,
- Stand by to neutralize any possible rocket attack on NATO territory.
- readiness to penetrate enemy anti-aircraft systems and execute air strikes, including enemy facilities,
- the presence of land forces along the border of the full alleged east flank of NATO and the readiness to defy possible invasions or hybrid actions, as well as to carry out offensive actions (so that Lukashenko was afraid to engage troops in Ukraine and had at the same time a pretext before Putin so that Belarus would not participate actively in the ongoing war, due to the request to safe the Polish-Belarusian and Lithuanian-Belarusian border),
- the possible to execute precise and mass impact on the Kaliningrad and Belarus Oblast, in order to neutralise the rocket-nuclear arsenal collected there,
- the presence of the Coalition's troops at the border with Moldova and the readiness to enter and then take control of the pro-Russian Transnistria,
- readiness to enter Ukraine (Koalition) as described above,
- readiness to take over full dominance in the air over Ukraine and support possible land operations (stabilization mission – sanitary cordon).
If, despite this kind of signals, Putin would decide to take Ukraine, then the Coalition troops should be brought to Ukraine in order to make a sanitary cordon. Coverage of western Ukraine – along with Kiev – protection. The decision on this kind of action in the event of Russia's actions must be made sooner and preferably public. Only then will the deterrence work. However, if intervention had already taken place, it should have been done in specified a way as would have been expected to fight the Russian army. Only ready to fire the barrel could halt the Russians' march and convince them that it is not worth fighting the Coalition.
Summary
Based on historical but besides contemporary experiences (vide Merkel's attitude in the Nord Stream II case in 2014) should be highlighted in the conclusion that the passive attitude, or that it has fallen, implies a further increase in the hazard of war. This active attitude, preceding Putin's actions, is the 1 that can halt him. inactive in Ukraine, in a conflict in which Russia bleeds and suffers advanced losses. Preventing Russia from gathering its strategical objectives Kiev crosses further Russian expansion plans and direct force on NATO and EU members. As long as war activities focus on the selected section of the front and do not lead to control of all Ukraine, the strategical interests of NATO, the EU, the United States, Poland and another Western countries are not seriously threatened.
However, the possible acquisition of control over Kiev, the crossing of the Dniepr line by the Russians and the easy access to Transnistria and NATO border in the Ukrainian section would be a failure for the West. And it would give Putin a chance that, as a consequence of further escalation and pressure, he would force the West to submit.
The Russians know that, which is why they inactive care about Ukraine. And if so, we should anticipate further attempts to defeat Ukraine. The demolition of her army, the overthrow of legal authorities, and the making of her as a vassal state to the Kremlin.
NATO and individual countries must be prepared for this scenario. A variant in which the Ukrainians themselves – despite immense aid – will not be able to defend themselves. We must have an action plan and solutions ready to halt the Russians and destruct their plans.
In this context, the option of intervention to make a sanitary cordon would be a completely viable undertaking to carry out which would block the advancement of the Russian troops on the front. At the same time, specified a step would by its nature be defensive and would not require decisions to be made about shooting Russian troops. On the contrary, Putin and his generals would face the dilemma of giving orders to attack the Coalition troops. This would entail a immense hazard of escalation and enlargement of the war to another states, including the United States.
It is worth listening to the narratives of Russian propaganda. This convinces that the United States and Poland want to annex western Ukrainian lands. What would happen by bringing troops to Ukraine. This is an apparent effort to propaganda neutralise the script in which allied troops come to the Ukrainians with help. The Russians are afraid of specified a movement so their propaganda – preemptively – tries to manipulate Western societies and Ukrainians themselves. To convince them that any intervention would be tantamount to entering the war with Russia (false deterrence of the West), and at the same time would aim to dismantle Ukraine (false discourage the Ukrainians themselves).
In this context, it should be reiterated that the entry of the Coalition's troops into the territory of a 3rd country, at the invitation or request of that 3rd country, would be a peaceful, defensive and peacekeeping mission. This Russian side – as attacking – would inactive stay an aggressor. And the possible actions of the Russians towards the Coalition's troops would be casus belli and breach of peace. Vladimir Putin was the 1 who would enter the war with the US if he ordered the Coalition to shoot troops in Ukraine. The deployment of troops of selected NATO states in a territory another than Russia or the OUBZ states does not constitute a war effort against Russia or the Organization of the Collective safety Agreement. Although the Crematorian propaganda is trying to represent it in this way.
And for this reason, president Joe Biden's surprise visit to Kiev on 20 February 2023 had specified an crucial dimension. Not only symbolic, but political. The first U.S. citizen visited the territory of Ukraine, where the war is taking place, and the Russian side is an aggressor. A day later in Warsaw, Joe Biden stated: “Ukraine will not be a Russian victory.” This should be read as a reasonably clear message by the United States: “This is our war and we will win it together with the Ukrainians! You Russians are the aggressor to be defeated and we will do so.It’s okay. ”
However, this kind of attitude must be followed by specifics. For Putin tends to test whether the words and demonstrations of opponents are based on real abilities and willingness to act.
Krzysztof Wojchal
Geopolitics, politics, economy, law, taxes – blog
