How to see Putin will NEVER attack NATO - “Because Russia will lose, and lose quickly” - Admiral Radakin - and Putin isn't even trying to protect Russia from NATO
[by lose quickly, Admiral Radakin means pushed right out of NATO territory, and any missile sytems firing at NATO destroyed - NATO wouldn't try to defeat Russia as it is purely defensive]
The media seems to treat Russia as if it was the far more powerful Soviet Union. But modern Russia is nothing like the Soviet Union. It’s got an economy similar to Italy. Most of the GDP of the Soviet Union ended up in NATO. Most of their defence industrial base ended up there too. It does have more people than Italy, but if it fought NATO, it is no match, with a far smaller population and far far smaller GDP and defense base.
NATO is a defensive alliance so by losing quickly, Admiral Radakin just means that if Russia tried to invade NATO then NATO would quickly push his army out of all NATO territory. If it was a small incursion with say a 1000 soldiers and say 50 tanks then it would be defeated in hours to a day or two, and that's it over. NATO wouldn’t invade Russia in return.
YOU CAN GET A FIRST IDEA OF THIS BLOG POST BY READING JUST THE TITLES OF THE SECTIONS AND LOOKING AT THE GRAPHICS
I design my blog posts so that the titles are like mini abstracts, they summarize what the section says. So you can just read the titles of each section and give a first idea.
ADMIRAL RADAKIN CHIEF OF THE UK ARMED FORCES ABOUT HOW RUSSIA WILL NOT ATTACK THE UK OR NATO
Admiral Radakin’s main point is that Russia is
more dangerous
but less effective
than they realized before the war started. By preparing in a strong way, they make it impossible for Putin to attack NATO.
See also my quote from General Radakin her
e
Text: The biggest reason that Putin doesn’t want a conflict with NATO is because Russia will lose. And lose quickly.
[Plus bullet points below]
These are some of his points from the speech - just reformatted as bullet-points and slightly rewritten to make it clearer, e.g. repeated the word NATO for clarity.
Any Russian assault or incursion against NATO would prompt an overwhelming response.
NATO can draw on 3.5 million uniformed personnel across the Alliance for reinforcement.
NATO’s combat air forces outnumber Russia’s 3 to 1 –
NATO would quickly establish air superiority.
NATO’s maritime forces would bottle up the Russian Navy in the Barents and the Baltic,
NATO has four times as many ships and three times as many submarines as Russia.
NATO has a
collective GDP twenty times greater than Russia.
total defence budget three-and-a-half times more than Russia AND China combined.
The biggest reason that Putin doesn’t want a conflict with NATO is because Russia will lose. And lose quickly
Putin expected to take between 3 days and 3 weeks.
to subjugate Ukraine’s population.
to take about two thirds of Ukraine’s territory.
to stop Ukraine joining NATO and the EU.
Putin failed in ALL these strategic objectives.
Its Air Force has failed to gain control of the air.
Its Navy has seen 25% of its vessels in the Black Sea sunk or damaged by a country without a Navy and Ukraine’s maritime trade is reaching back to pre-war levels.
Russia’s Army lost nearly 3,000 tanks, nearly 1500 artillery pieces and over 5,000 armoured fighting vehicles.
To pose a realistic threat to NATO’s Eastern flank within the next 2-5 years, Russia will need to
reconstitute her tanks and armoured vehicles,
rebuild her stocks of long-range missiles and artillery munitions and
extract itself from a protracted and difficult war in Ukraine.
[This doesn't mean Russia would attack. This is after the war is over and NATO would always be far stronger than Russia. He means back to how it was in 2022.]
I am not saying that Russia is not dangerous
But at the same time it is also significantly less capable than we anticipated following its disastrous illegal invasion into Ukraine.
And it faces an even stronger straitjacket with the introduction of Finland and Sweden into NATO.
Recent talk of a Britain that is undefended, and an Armed Forces chronically imperilled, is way off the mark.
There are always challenges in running a large organisation that conducts worldwide operations and is as sophisticated as our modern military.
These kinds of challenges apply to militaries everywhere. But
we have the finest people and some of the best equipment.
For longer extracts from his speech:
SHORT DEBUNK: Nothing even remotely resembling a world war situation in Ukraine now or in the future (under World War in the left panel if it doesn’t open to it)
The speech itself is here Chief of the Defence Chatham House Security and Defence Conference 2024 keynote speech
NO PUTIN WILL NOT RESPOND BY ATTACKING NATO - NOT AT ALL LIKE INVADING UKRAINE - THAT WOULD MEAN HE HAS LOST THE POWER OF COHERENT THOUGHT - WHILE HIS BLUFFS ARE THE ACTIONS OF A RATIONAL MAN WHO SEES THEY WORK
You can guarantee he won't attack NATO so long as he is capable of coherent thought and isn't completely mad.
It is very different from the invasion of Ukraine. There he built up for it with his soldiers doing exercises outside Ukraine. He had a plan for it which he thought was such a clever idea he never had a plan b, to distract Ukraine's army by attacking all around the border and quickly send an elite troop via helicopters to HOstomel airport, take it over, drive into Kyiv and take over the government before it had time to react.
But he can't have any such plan for attacking NATO.
Putin has not amassed any troops on NATO borders. The opposite, he removed them.
Putin is NOT preparing for a war with NATO - if he was his top priority would be to protect Moscow
Putin can’t find even one modern tank in Moscow for his Red Square Parades in 2023 or 2024.
By Sept 2022, Russia had lost much of its 1st Guard tank army
“Russia’s conventional force to counter NATO is severely weakened” UK Defence Intelligence
Background graphics: screenshot of this tweet from the UK MoD from 2022 Ministry of Defence 🇬🇧 (@DefenceHQ) on X
Photograph from Red Square parade on May 9, 2023.
. File:2023 Moscow Victory Day Parade 36.jpg - Wikimedia Commons
This is about how they had only one tank in 2024 too.
He removed the tanks from Moscow - not even one modern tank in Moscow for the red square parade
He removed much of the air defences.
He removed most of his soldiers from the very long border with NATO.
His nukes are not able to win a war without soldiers to back them up indeed they can't win a war at all. All they would achieve is to turn the entire world against him politically, to lose even neutral support from China and India, and to make it so that NATO's top objective is to make sure Russia can't launch any more nukes.
The Ukraine war was the plan of
a ruthless, over confident, but basically rational man who thought he had a cunning plan to win quickly and prepared for it carefully for at least a year (from his previous exercises a year before)..
A plan to attack NATO without any preparation when Russia is at its weakest ever is
a totally dim incoherent plan by a man who has lost his ability for coherent thought, and has done no preparation and has to be delusive at the level where perhaps he thinks Ukraine is being attacked by skyscraper sized spiders or something equally bizarre.
Do you see the difference?
And meanwhile constant bluffing is the reaction of
a rational man who has seen that his bluffs always lead NATO countries to delay sending significant capabilities to Ukraine to help it idefend itself and has previously achieved months and sometimes years of delay of critical ssytems that could have helped Ukraine defend itself by bluffing about nukes.
PUTIN WILL NEVER USE NUKES
Putin is never going to use nukes, he only uses them rhetorically as bluffs
Putin cares about many things. He has a vision of a future Russian empire and of himself as a type of Tsar figure. He doesn't care in the usual way about individual Rusisans, but many ordinary Russians too have a tradition from the past of doing as their tsar says to do and of sacrificing their lives to follow his commands.
Putin cares about Russianness, Faberge eggs the Russian culture and buildings and art and music
.
Putin cares about Russia - Russian culture and buildings and artefacts and "Russianness". He is like a modern day Tsar If he uses nukes, Russia will be harmed Saint Basil#s Cathederal and part of the Red Square, Moscow . Saint Basil's Cathedral and the Red Square
Putin cares about the imperial Faberge eggs of former Tsars - rosebud egg, one of nine eggs, total price $100 million bought for Russia by an oligarch friend Viktor Vekselberg and displayed in Faberge Museum, in Saint Petersburg
Putin wouldn't be president of Russia if he didn't care, he'd buy a comfortable home like a Russian oligarch and retire from politics. I talk about this here:
He would lose everything he has been working for his entire life if he used a nuke. Even just one tactical nuke in Ukraine and he sees his Black Sea Fleet sunk by neat precise conventional bombs delivered by the NATO tomahawk missiles which he can't stop, and which NATO hasn't provided to Ukraine. That would be utterly humiliating to him.
He'd lose even neutral support from India and China and Russia would become a rogue nation.
And he wouldn't win. And it wouldn't lead to a global nuclear war.
WHAT ABOUT THE UKRAINE INVASION? THAT WAS A MAN WHO WAS OVERCONFIDENT, MISINFORMED BUT STILL RATIONAL NOT INCAPABLE OF COHERENT THOUGHT
Yes Putin said he wouldn't invade and did invade. But that is different from his threats to use nukes. He invaded because he expected a quick success. He made a mistake there. But there is no way he can believe that using a nuke would lead to a quick success. That wouldn't be a miscalculation, that would be just incoherent, no longer able to reason properly.
BLOG: How nuclear deterrents work - like a bodyguard - their job is to prevent fights
Of course he doesn’t always bluff. But this is about knowing for sure any threat to attack NATO has to be a bluff.
This is not about whether he is ruthless enough or whether he is deceptive or not. It is whether he and his generals are capable of coherent thought
It is about whether Putin and his generals understand what a missile is, what a war is, what NATO can do and what Russia can do, and are able to make rational decisions, not delusive and are not living in a world of imagination such as thinking that Russia is being attacked by spiders the size of the Empre State building.
There is nothing to suggest Putin or his generals have lost the ability to think and Russia has many precautions to protect their nukes from being fired by insane people just as the US does.
Yes Putin can't be trusted. Jens Stoltenberg knows that as much as anything. Putin said over and over that he wouldn't invade Ukraine and then he did. A decision he has probably regretted ever since. He expected it to be easy and it wasn't.
But that does NOT mean he was mad. He was just misinformed. He invaded Ukraine because at the time it seemed to him a war he could win quickly in a fe days. There is no way he can have any similar belief about attacking NATO. That would just be total madness.
He constantly bluffs in order to PREVENT NATO from sending its weapons to Ukraine. How could it make sense to attack NATO and guarantee that NATO will then give Ukraine everything it asks for and more and evne take part in the war?
The ATACMS is 1980s technology. The F-16 is 1970s technology. He is bluffing as much as he can to try to stop NATO from sending decades old technology to Ukraine because he knows the Russian air defences can't stop the ATACMS and that his best fighter jets are only just equal to the F-16 with modern upgrades.
The last thing he wants is for NATO to supply Ukraine with fleets of F-16s quickly or to send them tomahawk cruise missiles iwth a range of over 1000 km which would likely quickly sink the entire Black Sea fleet -and if NATO was actually in the war on Ukraine's side its F-35s would take over the entire occupied air space quickly and also could take over the Russian airspace too as much as they wanted to and shoot out their radar systems from the air.
This is NOT what Putin wants. And he shows this by removing his defences against NATO from the entire border even when Finland and Sweden joined. Those aren't the actions of a man who plans to attack NATO.
MICHAEL GOVE - DOESN’T THINK IT IS HELPFUL TO THINK OF PUTIN AS MAD - BUT RATHER AS SOMEONE WHOSE RUTHLESSNESS HAS TAKEN HIM INTO A MORAL SPHERE THE REST OF US FIND ALMOST IMPOSSIBLE TO CONCEIVE OF
Michael Gove, UK secretary of state for Levelling up, housing and communities : “I don’t think it’s helpful to think of Putin as mad. I think what we do need to think of him as, and indeed we do need to recognise, is someone whose ruthlessness takes them into a moral sphere that the rest of us would find almost impossible to conceive of.” The photo is his official portrait Official portrait ofra Rt Hon Michael Gove MP
For more about those infographics see my
ADMIRAL SIR TONY RADAKIN - WE HAVE TO MAINTAIN A CALMNESS AND RESPONSIBILITY AND NOT JUST REACT TO EVERY BIZARRE OR RIDICULOUS COMMENT FROM PRESIDENT PUTIN
We have got to maintain a calmness and responsibility so we don't just react rashly to whatever is the latest frankly at times bizarre or ridiculous comment from president Putin. [paraphrase: We have good intelligence, knew about the invasion plans for months - we would see warning signs if this was going to start to chart a path towards nuclear escalation. Admiral Sir Tony Radakin Chief of the defence staff (UK) . NATO see NO SIGNS of any path towards nuclear escalation and maintain a calmness and responsibility - Admiral Sir Tony Radakin - also about no fly zone and nuclear plants
For more about those infographics see my
WHY RUSSIA WILL NEVER ATTACK NATO - BECAUSE NATO IS VASTLY MORE POWERFUL LIKE A MIDGET ATTACKING A MAMMOTH WITH SOAP BUBBLE
TEXT ON GRAPHIC:
NASA, huge and powerful but very timid
Russia knows it can't use nukes in reality
Russia tiny and weak, bluffs as meaningless as soap bubbles
Even the Soviet Union had no way to win a war with nukes
Imagine if your team was invisible - how easily you could win a game of football.
That is how much better NATO's F-35 jets are than anything Russia has.
300+ F-35s (USA), 100+ F-35s (Europe).
Russia's 5th generation fighter jet is not ready for war and may never be (expensive technology to develop).
NATO's technology is vastly superior (one of many ways)
NATO: Population 967 million
[it's 631 million leaving out USA]
Russia: Population 144 million
NATO: 3.5 million soldiers
Russia: 1.32 million soldiers
Ukraine: 900,000 soldiers
US defence spending $883.7 billion, 3% of GDP
NATO European allies $380 billion, 2% of GDP
Russia: $112 billion, 6% of GDP.
Ukraine: $43.23 billion, 22.1% of GDP
Based on this image created by Dall-E via Bing Chat Generated by Microsoft Copilot
American football photo from: US Navy 090608-N-3283P-018 The Yokosuka Seahawks face off against the Yokohama Harbors during the U.S. Forces Japan-American Football league at Yokosuka Field - Wikimedia Commons
Putin head from this graphic flipped Vladimir Putin (2017-01-17)
Details for the figures on the graphic, see: For Russia to attack NATO is like a midget attacking a mammoth with soap bubbles - it can't do it
Ukraine’s 900,000 soldiers is about 2% of its population while Russia’s 1.32 million soldier is less than 1% of its population.
Ukraine’s 2% may seem a lot but it isn't all out war levels of conscription.
UK had 24.4% of the male population fighting in WW2, and it was similar in USA even higher in Germany and Axis countries.
. WWII: share of male population mobilized by country 1937-1945 | Statista
So that 2% fighting in Ukraine which would be about 4% of the male population is way below all out war levels of 24.4 % or 6 times as much. .
Ukraine could increase that % many times over if it needed to, if it was in an all out war where numbers of soldiers matter like in WW2, but chooses not to. Russia could increase its % too but chooses not to.
For Putin a larger % would begin to get very unpopular as his people are not fighting for the survival of their country. Although Putin is a dictator he is dependent on support from his people too, and they would be hard to govern if they seriously were opposed to the war. So he needs to keep them happy and especially the wealthier ones in the big cities he manages to insulate from the war so far to a large extent.
For Ukraine, it wants a low % so that it can keep its peace time economy and expertise and be prepared for the end of the war and recovery.
RADAR CROSS SECTION OF THE F-35 FIGHTER JETS - LIKE A SUPERSONIC POTATO
Imagine how hard it would be to defend against supersonic potatoes? That is what the Russians would see in their radars if they were fighting a NATO country with F-35s
.
When you look for one of these F-35s on radar …
This is what you see: [large potato]
Russian radar operator (imagined): “What is that on the radar? A supersonic potato?”
Billie Flyn, F-35 test pilot on what it would do in Ukraine.
It would go in and kill every surface-to-air missile threat that was out there, and neutralize all the threats on the ground, and achieve air dominance because it would kill all the air-to-air assets also. Remember: we see them, they don’t see us. It’s like playing football, when one team’s invisible, and the other team is not….
Background photos: rightmost potato from: Potato var. Linda HC1 and F-35 at Edwards
The 4th generation F-35 has a radar cross section of 0.005 square meters or about 7 cm by 7 cm, 2.8 inches by 2.8 inches similar to a large potato. It's like trying to detect supersonic potatoes in flight. The Mig-29 has a cross section of 3 square meters so about the size of a normal door. The F-16c is between the two, 1.2, smaller than a door.
Figures from here: Radar Cross Section (RCS)
Since 2022, Ukraine has been asking for the high altitude stealth Gray Eagle drone which can fly far behind the front line and then deliver ATACMS like missiles from far too high for Russia to detect them.
But the US won’t send them. Again NATO would have those.
TEXT ON GRAPHIC
Ukraine has asked for the high altitude stealth Grey Eagle drone since 2022.
this could drop small precise missiles from an undetectable high alitude of 25,000 feet (7,600 meters) and fly for up to 36 hours, range of 370 km.
Any NATO country has these available from day 1.
Photo: MQ-1C Warrior (2005-08-11)
Details from: General Atomics MQ-1C Gray Eagle
.jpg){kind=link}
Similarly they are not likely to send the veteran 1980s technology Tomahawk cruise missiles with a range of over 2,400 kilometers and a payload like the ATACMS.
If Ukraine had those, then given how vulnerable the Russian warships have been since it sunk the Moskkva, Ukraine could sink the Russian ships anywhere in the Black Sea.
Russia would no longer have a Black Sea fleet the day after Ukraine got the missiles. But the US would be too worried about giving Ukraine that capability.
So Ukraine won’t get these missiles. But if Russia was ever to fight against a NATO country, they will have to face vast numbers of Tomahawks, and so on.
For more about NATO’s vast technological advantage over Russia see my:
For more about NATO’s vast technological advantage over Russia see my:
RUSSIA LOST AND CONTINUES TO LOSE MONEY THROUGH CORRUPTION
Russia has brilliant scientists and engineers of course. That’s not the issue. It’s funding. It just costs so much to develop a modern 4th generation never mind 5th generation fighter. Russia with a GDP like Italy can’t do it
It’s made worse by the oligarchs. Imagine it’s like Italy in its economy but a lot of the wealth of the country is siphoned off to make multi-billion dollar yachts for the megarich.
. GDP - Gross Domestic Product 2024
This doesn’t happen in the other great powers, not in China, not in the US or NATO. There are always cases of corruption but not to this extent.
Only in Russia.
Ever since the breakup of the Soviet Union in the 1990s, Russia has had far less money to spend on weapons and air defences and other military technology than the Soviet Union. What’s more, NATO has had more than before.
To make it worse for Russia, better for NATO, Russian oligarchs syphoned away much of the defence spending.
For instance if the Kerch bridge was indeed damaged by a truck bomb the reason the security systems didn’t spot it is likely due to a corruption scandal. More than $21 million intended to increase bridge security was syphoned away and the security wasn't enhanced.
https://twitter.com/ChrisO_wiki/status/1585945821056765954
One famous example: a destroyer captain stole the bronze propellers from his own ship, replacing them with cheaper steel ones for profit of 39 million rubles. It was headed for a museum. So he only defrauded the museum and it didn’t impact on the effectiveness of the military [russian-navy-commander-stole-two-13-t]
This is an earlier similar scandal to the Kerch bridge defence system scandal. Some oligarch pocketed $26 million for a new airborne missile defence system called "Drotik D-E.", and all Russia got in exchange when it folded up were
2 old laptops
a damaged telescope
a radio-telephone Panasonic,
a damaged model of a missile, and
the addresses of public toilets in the Samara region of Russia
See:
. Russian-Defense-Corruption-Report-Beliakova-Perlo-Freeman-20180502-final.
That paper lists several other scandals that directly impacted Russia's military capabilities.
Zelensky was elected on an anti-corruption platform after playing a fictional president elected to fight corruption. Ukraine had a past history of a huge amount of corruption. But it has been working hard on eliminating it. And in the last 2 weeks Zelensky has gone on a big anti-corruption drive - he needs to end corruption to join the EU and of course it is of vital importance to show that the funding from NATO / EU is being used as intended and not lost to corruption.
. Top Ukrainian officials quit in anti-corruption drive
And podcast about it here: ukrainian-president-zelensky-fight-against-corruption/e56a6ec3-5c0c-486b-a801-0b1291a06069
VASTLY MORE POWERFUL NUCLEAR POWERS OFTEN LOSE WARS AND NEVER USE NUKES - THE USA AND THE SOVIET UNION NEVER USED NUKES WHEN THEY WERE LOSING
They have never been used in any previous conflict and no way that in reality Russia or Israel use them, or China for that matter. Example
Korean war, even when the Chinese came in on the side of the North Koreans and back long before China had nukes, the US didn't consider using nukes against Beijing.
Iraq war and many other conflicts.
soviet Union and Afghanistan, the Soviet Union had to withdraw from Afghanistan and they never considered using nukes.
The far more powerful Soviet Union was in a similar situation when they tried to capture Afghanistan. That war lasted nine years and was a disaster for the Soviet Union and likely contributed to its breakup.
There was nothing they could have done to improve their military situation using nukes then and there is nothing they can do today in Ukraine using them
.
The Soviet Union, at the time second strongest army in the world, and a nuclear power, lost the war to Afghanistan, one of the weakest armies in the world - you can’t use nukes to win wars.
Last Soviet troop column leaving Afghanistan on 15 Feb 1989
Graphic from Withdrawal of Soviet troops from Afghanistan.jpg - Wikimedia Commons
See also:
. Why the Soviet Union Invaded Afghanistan
. Soviet withdrawal from Afghanistan - Wikipedia
MACER GIFFORD ON WHY PUTIN WON’T ATTACK NATO
Note I am not doing this to advocate anything. I am not asking NATO countries to be less timid. It is just to help people who get scared by Putin’s bluffs.
As a Buddhist who has taken the vow of not killing, I can help people who are scared of Putin’s bluffs but there is no way that I could say anything that might influence policy or supply of weapons or anything like that. There are Buddhist soldiers but I am not one of them and I chose the path of someone who takes the vow of not killing which is a commonly taken vow in Buddhism.
For the background please see:
Macer Gifford is a volunteer British fighter on the front line who I follow on Twitter who gives useful insights into the war put it like this:
It still seems we're in that territory of escalation management, where we are giving Ukraine both the kit and the permissions it needs to late in every single circumstance.
And the incursions into Kharkiv show that as well, they were not allowed to hit and still
aren't technically allowed to hit Russians massing on the Russian side of the border in the full knowledge that that will soon be sort of thrown into Ukrainian territory.
That has to change. And it has to change urgently, doesn't it?
Well, this is what irritates me as well is the delusion of escalation.
Then he gives the examples of the Iraq war, and the Korean war.
If you look at the Korean War, the, the Southern Korean forces were under a huge amount of pressure. The Americans get involved in the fight, they push the Koreans back. The war looks like it's going to be won by the Americans.
The Chinese deploy, troops attack. Chinese troops are attacking American troops. They're supplying weapons. And all the rest of it. They support the North Koreans far more than the West is supported.
America wasn't launching nuclear missiles at Beijing during the Korean War.
During the Iraq War, Iran was supplying themilitias and the terrorists in Baghdad and other places with a huge amount of weapons and bomb making kits and all the rest of it. America wasn't bombing Iran and attacking Iran. They realized they were condemning Iran, and they were they were they were threatening Iran that they should not be targeting American troops and all the rest of it.
Then he talks about his frustrations on the front line of the shortages of supplies when they know NATO could supply more powerful weapons
The frustrating thing here is that we have we've had to eke out supplies from the West to Ukraine over the last two years from tanks.
It's one issue after the next. Whether it's rocket propelled grenades or anti-tank missiles, I should say, to suddenly being tanks themselves, to more artillery pieces, to finally aeroplanes and planes and jets and all the rest of it, and then long range missiles, all these things are being dragged out of America.
He talks about how Russia is always going to draw red lines no matter what NATO suppliers do
Russia is constantly drawing red lines everywhere.
It can possibly draw them. But Russia is always going to do that.
And about how Russia is very small, barely a regional power in terms of its economy
You've got to wake up to the fact that Russia has an economy around the size of Spain's. It's actually a very small, uh, barely a regional power.
It's only a regional power because of the size of its armed forces and because it has nuclear weapons.
And we've got the passion and the support of the entire European Union, pretty much, albeit there's a few naysayers, the United States, there is such an imbalance here.
And about how if the West collectively just said they would ignore his red lines and do everything they can to get Ukraine to win. Russia wouldn’t start using nukes because that would be the end of the Russian state.
[Suppose] the West collectively turned to Russia and said, actually, screw your red lines, here's our sodding red lines, and we're going to do everything we can to get Ukraine to win. You might as well just back off.
Russia is not going to start launching nuclear weapons because that would involve the complete destruction of the Russian state.
I think that genuinely that if Putin even ordered it or even started pursuing that as a realistic course of action, I think he may even be toppled.
I think that would be the thing that actually gets the people around him to say, actually, this mad dog needs to get put down.
So I don't support I think it's ludicrous, the idea of non escalation.
I genuinely think it's destructive. I think it's the very thing that the Russian propaganda machine threatens.
I think it's we're being a victim of Russian propaganda here [Coercive control].
And we need to we need to get past that because the stakes here, as I said, are vast.
That's why we need to win this war. And, um, hopefully there are some countries that are better than others.
And hopefully the countries with the loudest voices and with the most passion, all the rest of it will win the day and we will get this war done.
I think it was Winston Churchill that said, America will do all the wrong things first before finally doing the right thing.
On that last point about US doing the right thing after doing all the wrong things first, Churchill doesn’t seem to have said it in any published writings according to the Churchill society, though he may have had that sentiment.
QUOTE STARTS
Q. On Fox News, Brit Hume cited a variation of a supposed Churchill remark: “Americans can always be trusted to do the right thing, once all other possibilities have been exhausted.” It is not really very complimentary to Americans. I thought it was un-Churchill-like. Did he actually say it? —R.M., via email.
We have been unable to discover it in any transcript, memoir, or published or private writings, speech, or correspondence. This is not to say that Churchill didn’t have that sentiment from time to time. Many would not see it as anti-American, but as a plain expression by a friend. As has been said, “A friend is someone who knows all about you, but likes you.”
GENERAL BEN HODGES VIEW - THE US WILL EVENTUALLY CROSS ALL PUTIN’S RED LINES - WHY WAIT, WHY DELAY WHILE UKRAINIANS CONTINUE TO LOSE LIVES?
He mentions how France and Germany joined the UK saying their weapons can be used in a defensive war against Russian soil.
He talked about how predictably Putin said these would have “serious consequences”.
But in reality Putin will do nothing as with all the other times he made similar threats.
Here is how he put it:
. Predictably, Russian President Vladmir Putin responded that these moves could lead to “serious consequences,” particularly for “small and densely populated countries.”
This threat has been made by Putin again and again, often referencing Russia’s nuclear weapons, as the West has upped it’s support for Ukraine. The US needs to stop taking it seriously.
Let’s revisit some history from the last couple of years.
Ukraine requested Javelins and Stingers before the full-scale war began when Russia invaded Ukraine in February of 2022. Initially, they didn’t receive the large quantities they wanted amid fears of escalation. Eventually, they received more, used them effectively, and then received even more.
No nuclear war occurred.
After the battle of Kyiv was won, Ukraine requested MiG-29s, which Poland agreed to provide in exchange for Western fighters. The Biden administration blocked this initially, but later relented, and no nuclear war occurred.
Ukraine requested F-16 fighter jets to help protect its skies. The administration initially said no, then changed its stance, and no nuclear war occurred.
Ukraine requested Patriot missiles to defend against relentless Russian air attacks. The administration initially said no, then changed its stance, and no nuclear war occurred. Many lives were saved.
Ukraine requested HIMARS rocket launchers, the advanced missile/artillery system, to attack Russian supply lines. The administration initially said no, then changed its stance, and no nuclear war occurred.
Ukraine requested Abrams tanks and Bradley infantry fighting vehicles for trench warfare in the east. The administration initially said no, then changed its stance, and no nuclear war occurred.
Ukraine requested ATACMS missiles, with a range of about 190 miles, to attack Russian targets. The administration initially said no, then changed its stance, and no nuclear war occurred.
In almost every one of these cases, Russia threatened escalation, an attack on NATO or the use of nuclear weapons. Each time, the bluff was called, and Ukraine was able to better defend its territory.
While Russian threats should not be taken lightly, history shows us that these threats are often hollow. During the Cold War, nuclear threats were not uncommon, but the US didn’t keep them from advancing its foreign policy interests.
Imagine if we had provided Ukraine with all of the above weapons from the start? After the 2022 counteroffensive, Russia was on the defensive, disorganized and demoralized and struggling to recruit more troops. Ukraine might have finished the fight using all of the above, or at least had a much more successful counteroffensive in 2023. The war might have ended.
There are those who say that the Biden administration’s careful calibration has allowed the US to give increasing amounts of firepower to Ukraine without triggering Russian tripwires. But this isn’t how war works. The idea that Russia would use nukes has been shown not to be a real concern. Just as we slowly rachet up pressure, so could Russia slowly increase its pain tolerance and have chosen to react at any point.
All of this is important to remember as Ukraine repeatedly requests permission to strike military targets inside Russia with American weapons. So far, they have been denied, but let’s make a prediction: They will eventually be granted this permission. So why wait? Why delay while Ukrainians continue to lose their lives?
. Opinion: Time to call Putin’s bluff | CNN
This is NOT RECKLESS. I hope you can see from the rest of this blog post that it’s the other way around.
People like Ben Hodges are not being reckless.
Rather, Biden is being incredibly careful and many would say even timid. He is not taking any risk with American lives or NATO partners’ lives.
And - if there was a real risk here, the Baltic states, they know Putin best of all, they live very close to Russia, they are familiar with Putin’s bluffs from long before teh war. But they are the very ones saying to ignore them. They would be the ones most at risk if they were serious threats.
So I hope this can help you all to be a bit less scared and realize that your leaders in NATO countries are not taking risks, they are the opposite, exceptionally, extraordinarily cautious and careful.
WE TAKE NUMEROUS MEASURES TO PREVENT A WORLD WAR - THE UN WAS SET UP TO PREVENT A WORLD WAR
So no there isn’t any risk of Russia attacking NATO and Putin does NOT want a world war for the same reason you don’t.
There are numerous measures taken to prevent a world war. At the time of WW2 we didn't even have the United Nations. The UN was SET UP TO PREVENT A WORLD WAR
QUOTE As World War II was about to end in 1945, nations were in ruins, and the world wanted peace. Representatives of 50 countries gathered at the United Nations Conference on International Organization in San Francisco, California from 25 April to 26 June 1945. For the next two months, they proceeded to draft and then sign the UN Charter, which created a new international organization, the United Nations, which, it was hoped, would prevent another world war like the one they had just lived through.
We have the Geneva conventions, the International Court of Justice - Wikipedia
Then there are the treaties. There are the deconfliction lines. There are the many measures to make sure that humans are in the loop at all times for nukes, to prevent any possibility of an accidental use. Many people think nukes themselves prevented a world war. There's NATO. That was created in 1949 and it provided collective security, which Europe never had before.
. Milestones in the History of U.S. Foreign Relations
All these many meetings we have, different groups, the UN Security council, the NATO countries working together what to do etc. None of that existed before WW2.
Then countries are far more dependent on each other than back then. Just the disruption of the grain exports through the Black Sea caused problems globally even though we never had any shortage of grain globally.
We are far more secure. People are healthier, live longer. We have much more communication globally than anyone could even have imagined was possible back then. What we are doing now, typing into computers and someone the far side of the world reads it almost instantly - that would have seemed a fantasy back then. That helps us be much more aware of what is going on in the world.
There is no need to EVER have another war. And many get the impression MISTAKENLY that the longer you have without a world war the more likely it gets. The opposite. The longer without a world war the LESS likely. If all the information you have is the number of years without a world war, the more years, the less likely.
But it is far more safe than that because we have a huge amount of attention to it.
You can ignore all the bluffs, behind the scenes people are very careful to avoid larger wars.
THERE IS NO USE IN MUCH WORRY - AND LITTLE THINGS YOU CAN DO
Then you can lso help in small ways in Ukraine.
I added the Ukraine flag to my Facebook, Quora and Twitter profiles.
I added extra text to make it clear this is support for ALL those suffering. By that I mean also to think about the Russian soldiers too
.
Flag of the wonderful Russia of the future
#StandWithUkraine
+ any countries illegally invaded
Support for ALL those suffering
To find happiness and peace!
"When we face some problem, if there is a way to work on it, then make effort. If the situation is such that there is no way to overcome it, then there is no use in much worry."
Dalai Lama
You can add a Ukrainian flag to your profile to show solidarity with the Ukrainians sheltering in undergrounds
Also give thought to ordinary Russian soldiers ordered to fight a war they don't understand, baffled and confused and many died, or surrendered or captured as POW.
You can add a Ukrainian flag to your profile, many do. It’s to show solidarity with the Ukrainians and what they are going through as they shelter in undergrounds for another night of bombing of Kyiv and other cities. You can add it here, choose Ukraine in the list to the left. Facebook_frames
Also though, do give thought to ordinary Russian soldiers ordered to fight a war they don't understand, baffled and confused and many died, or surrendered or captured as POW.
It’s a little thing but it’s something. That’s why I also added the “Flag of the wonderful Russia of the future”. Many Russians are opposed to this invasion too. Some of them want to change the flag of Russia. Others want to go back to the Russian flag but with a slightly paler shade of blue associated with their attempts at moving towards more freedom and democracy under Gorbachov.
The new flag is eye catching so that’s why I use it, the Russian flag with a paler shade of blue wouldn’t be recognizable by most as different from the current flag and might be interpreted as support for Putin’s invasion. So it’s a little thing I do to support the direction of peace.
DALAI LAMA: “WHEN WE FACE SOME PROBLEM IF THERE IS A WAY TO WORK ON IT - THEN MAKE EFFORT - IF THE SITUATION IS SUCH THAT THERE IS NO WAY TO OVERCOME IT - THEN THERE IS NO USE IN MUCH WORRY” (BASED ON SHANTIDEVA)
Another thing you can do if you can afford it - donate to the UK Red Cross. Doesn't matter if it is a small amount, lots of small amounts add up. They have a Ukraine crisis appeal.
More of them here
. Big humanitarian crisis in Ukraine - you can donate to help
But - don’t feel you have to give away more than you can afford or get into financial hardship! Far better to help in small ways with no regret.
Instead of cowering in fear and depression, you can try actually doing something. If you can.
And if you can’t then there is no use in much worry.
The Dalai Lama put it like this, 1:17:40 into this video: He in turn is quoting the 8th Century Indian sage Shantideva:
1:17:40 into the video:
"When we face some problem, if there is a way to work on it, then make effort. If the situation is such that there is no way to overcome it, then there is no use in much worry." [Dalai Lama's comment on the quote] A very realistic and very scientific way of thinking.
He goes on to talk about how he applied this advice to his exile from Tibet and his interactions with China and the Chinese people.
Video here: Compassion and the Individual | The 14th Dalai Lama
About Shantideva here Shantideva
See also
. Breathe in and out slowly and deeply and other ways to calm a panic attack
. Seven tips for dealing with doomsday fears
GROUNDING YOURSELF IN KINDNESS
Also grounding yourself in kindness may help.
BLOG: Looking for kindness - Far healthier than looking for hostility especially if easily scared
BLOG: On Substack (plays videos better): The true heroes and true brave and kind hearts in the world? - not Netanyahu or Putin - taking the side of Peace - if you get caught up in anger with them it can help to turn those values upside down
SEVEN TIPS FOR DEALING WITH DOOMSDAY FEARS
And see my seven tips. This is one of them:
Then - that won't be enough probably. You will still be very scared, especially if you don't have a strong scientific background. So expect that and don't be too hard on yourself.
You can't stop yourself thinking about it. To see this, try to stop thinking about a yellow hippopotamus on a tightrope for two minutes. It won't work. Your mind will be full of tight rope walking yellow hippos, though you have probably never thought of one ever before in your life.
yellow hippo - applique on orange t-shirt - try not to think about yellow hippos for two minutes. I bet you won’t succeed :).
Cognitive Therapy may help, see Tips from CBT - might help some of you to deal with doomsday anxieties - this is not psychotherapy, nothing to do with examining the past and your childhood, just working with the rut your mind got into right now.
Also breath meditation, or gentle exercises combined with your breath such as Tai Chi.
Do see health professionals. If you've been scared for a long time or very scared, it is a matter of mental health. Not in the sense of going mad but just in the sense of anxiety / depression / panic which happens to most people for one reason or another in their lifetime, whether it's a bereavement, sacked, house move, or in this case believing a crazy conspiracy theory - or whatever it is.
. Seven tips for dealing with doomsday fears
SEE ALSO
Most of this is an extract from my:
See also my
DISABLED COMMENTS - WHEN FIRST POSTED
This is a post that might get comments from people who just read the title, and don't read the post itself and those can scare the people I help with their many mistaken statements that are often already debunked in the post they comment on - which they don’t even read.
This has happened so often that I now disable comments when I first do blog posts likely to attract comments by people who don’t read the article.
I then usually re-enable comments after giving time for it to drop out of people’s news feeds for Quora or from Google search results.
CONTACT ME VIA PM OR ON FACEBOOK OR EMAIL THE BEST WAY TO CONTACT ME AS I DON’T GET NOTIFICATIONS FOR MANY COMMENTS ON MY POSTS
If you need to talk to me about something do contact me it is often far better to do so via private / direct messaging because Quora often fails to notify me of comment replies.
You can Direct Message my profile (then More >> messages).
Or better, email me at support@robertinventor.com
Or best of all Direct Message me on Facebook if you are okay joining Facebook. My Facebook profile is here:
I usually get those messages much faster than on the other platforms as I spend most of my day there.
FOR MORE HELP
To find a debunk see: List of articles in my Debunking Doomsday blog to date
Scared and want a story debunked? Post to our Facebook group
Please look over the group rules before posting or commenting as they help the group to run smoothly
Facebook group Doomsday Debunked
Also do join our facebook group if you can help with fact checking.
We also have many scared and panicking people use our group. If you can help as a first responder basically just to help people who are panicking to listen to them, help them to calm down a bit, find out what the issue is and so on it’s a great help as sometimes it’s some hours before someone can do a detailed debunk, whoever can help might be asleep or doing something else etc etc.. So that’s also a great help.
SHORT DEBUNKS (NEW)
I have just started a new page called “short debunks”. This has all the substantial debunks I do for the Facebook group. As you see I do many more of these, often ten a day, far too many to write them all up as blog posts., It only has the most recent short debunks, it would take ages to update it with older ones.
But if there is something scaring you in the news you may find I have debunked it here already.