Impending Invasion of Ukraine from Belarus Will Likely Force NATO to Act

a reply to: TrueAmerican

Got a source for those troop numbers you quoted?

Cheers

a reply to: F2d5thCavv2

make sure the source is from zelinskies journal or this guy wont believe it

a reply to: TrueAmerican

Iraq invaded Kuwait in the 20th century, and that was not the reason used 12 years later. I mentioned that in the original thread i asked him, but was ignored. The official reason for Iraq were WMD's and 9/11, both of which were false and admitted as such later. And yet here we are today, continuing to believe lies that Ukraine is some kind of democratic state and innocent and in need of saving.

Russia is simply following a precedent of pre-emptive strikes set by the USA to save the people of Ukraine from a madman who regulary has his own men killed for surrender and actively persecutes and murders journalists and opposition figures as a matyer of state policy.

Sounds just like Sadaam to me.

a reply to: TrueAmerican

I remember Kuwait drilling oil out from under Iraq, and the US telling Saddam to do whatever.

Then the US pushing lies about the babies in incubators as a pretext for our getting involved.

a reply to: Salamandy

I rely on decades of experience living in various countries that are part of NATO.

You're welcome to your opinions ... but:

Here's something for you-- operations external to NATO countries: ONE -- Afghanistan.

You are confused about the difference between operations undertaken by NATO (the organization), and actions undertaken by member countries of NATO, which, as sovereign entities may opt to conduct military operations. As far as Ukraine is concerned, member countries of NATO have -individually- opted to make military equipment available to the Ukrainian government.

You also seem to be confused about the difference between the EU and NATO, and who is doing what east of the NATO countries in Europe. There is a world of difference there and just because the membership of both organizations is similar, it is not at ALL one and the same.

The USA, UK, NATO, and EU are all different entities, and the operations they undertake have very different goals and consequences. Being aware of that allows one to better assess what is currently happening in Europe.

Cheers

originally posted by: TrueAmerican


Unless I am totally losing it, I believe Iraq invaded Kuwait. Oh wait... yes ,they did. In this case, Russia invaded Ukraine. Wasn't enough. So instead of Putin just cutting his losses and retreating, he's doubling down and dragging in Belarus. I think it's fair at this point that Ukraine drag someone else in too then. For example, Poland. If Belarus invades Ukraine, then Poland invades Belarus. This has got to stop somewhere. And Poland arguably has more of a national security interest in ultimately stopping Russia's invasions than just about anyone else. Cause they may well be next.

That's my thoughts on this pretty much. If the Belorussians join with Russia in another invasion from the north, Poland will most likely come to Ukraine's aid. Russia would be in heaven, since the start seven months ago, the Russians have been saying that Poland was going to come over the border in western Ukraine. There is a whole thread here somewhere that discusses just this from the Russian POV.

I don't know if there is a group of people more hated by the Russians then the Poles. They got a long history.

That isn't NATO though, particularly if Poland isn't directly attacked. It's akin to a coalition of the willing back in '03. Most NATO countries didn't send more than a few token troops to Iraq, it was mostly the US and the UK.

Now if the Poles start a large scale build up on the borders and is preempitvely hit by either Russia or Belarus, that changes things and may force NATO into a response.

We will see I guess.

The Russians couldn't do it with a kinda element of surprise and with Ukraine not that prepared. They have had 7 months to prepare for any action of this type.

Personally, I feel this would be a huge tactical mistake on Russia's end. How much of any troop build up is going to be recently mobilized men?

a reply to: GAOTU789

My guess is that NATO (the organization) is in contact with, and monitoring, the respective national militaries that make up their eastern tier. This isn't their first rodeo with the Russians invading countries east of NATO's turf.

Cheers

originally posted by: Cutepants
I agree NATO should get involved. But the Belarus army is small. I think they could have made a difference at the start of the war, but they can't make up for the strength Russia has lost since then.

Let them sort it out between themselves and keep outside influences out of it.

Russia didn't get involved when USA launched an illegal war against Iraq.

Nobody else's business whatsoever, just an inter Slav mafia war. NATO................... Keep out!

a reply to: GAOTU789

Exactly. At current, there appears to be some six battalions, and supposedly, to counter an invasion from Ukraine. I had heard the Chechen 70,000+ were intending to supplement this on the Belarus border. That does not appear to be occurring, since reports now have it that the Chechens will not mobilize, fearing extreme protests in Chechnya.

However, with Belarus agreeing with Putin, and now having actually deployed troops on the border, why would one assume that they are there solely to prevent a Ukrainian invasion? That's actually absurd. The Ukrainians are in no position whatsoever to mount any kind of invasion into Belarus. The much more logical conclusion is that Belarus will invade from the north, on the orders of Putin, in an attempt to divide and conquer. And Putin may wait a while on that order, retaining them first as backup, but then when all else fails with the new mobilization, pull the trigger from the north. But what if he doesn't wait?

Few believed Putin would invade Ukraine, even when the obvious was staring at them in the face.

Whether it's NATO as a whole, partially, or simply the US, the point I am trying to make with this thread is that someone had better do something quick. The consequence of waiting until that force on the Belarus border gets too strong is far too great for Ukraine.

Now whatever that action is, remains to be seen. But fair is fair. Putin brings in Belarus? Then a logical thing to do would be to threaten Belarus from Poland- and exactly- with a massive buildup of troops on the Poland/Belarus border. Belarus would be forced to counter, which would immediately divide and weaken their resources. Belarus moves, and Poland moves.

a reply to: TrueAmerican

I predicted this months ago.
Russia will use Belarus to tie down Ukrainian troops in the NW while it focuses on consolidating gains in the SE.

It was obvious early on that this would be the strategy.

a reply to: TrueAmerican

Poland isn't going to get involved either way.

As for Belarus their military is tiny.

There is a statement from the Belarus leader on the whole matter avaliable on tass.com. but let me guess, you won't believe it because it's a Russian website. He doesn't seem very interested in getting involved. He seems more worried Ukraine will attack Belarus after the attack on the crimean bridge.

a reply to: Nexttimemaybe

If he was not interested, then he wouldn't have allowed Putin to use his airspace, much less actually mobilizing troops to the border. Only a fool would believe those troops are there solely to prevent a Ukrainian invasion. The supposed note handed to the ambassador is another sham, designed to present a plausible reason for the deployment. Six battalions may be not be much for now, but who's to say that won't be reinforced, and substantially in the coming weeks? Considering the Russians already have access to Belarus airspace, this presents a credible threat when they are backed by Russian fighter jets.

originally posted by: TrueAmerican
a reply to: Nexttimemaybe

If he was not interested, then he wouldn't have allowed Putin to use his airspace, much less actually mobilizing troops to the border. Only a fool would believe those troops are there solely to prevent a Ukrainian invasion. The supposed note handed to the ambassador is another sham, designed to present a plausible reason for the deployment. Six battalions may be not be much for now, but who's to say that won't be reinforced, and substantially in the coming weeks? Considering the Russians already have access to Belarus airspace, this presents a credible threat when they are backed by Russian fighter jets.

Only a fool would think Belarus is going to attack Ukraine, only an idiot.

a reply to: Nexttimemaybe

Well, I must admit, I was one of the fools who thought Putin wouldn't dare invade Ukraine. But even fools can learn.

a reply to: F2d5thCavv2

thanks for the info. eu and nato are different, so they say and i appreciate the help distinguishing them apart

i think both of them need to go. they only seem to make more violence in the world. and yes, so does "my boy", as some war mongers would accuse, putin)

originally posted by: IAMTAT
a reply to: TrueAmerican

I predicted this months ago.
Russia will use Belarus to tie down Ukrainian troops in the NW while it focuses on consolidating gains in the SE.

It was obvious early on that this would be the strategy.

It would also fit into my theory about what Putin's end goal is. I don't believe he ever wanted the entire country, just parts of it in the east.

In my eyes, if anything the prospect of nuclear war has diminished.

-gasp- How could I say that?

Because it takes two sides to engage in a nuclear war. Does anyone here honestly think if Russia went nuclear against Ukraine that the West would respond kinetically?

We haven't even had the stomach to respond kinetically to Russia's conventional war, and if they use a tactical nuke we are suddenly gonna grow a backbone?

Yeah, I don't think so. If Russia pops off a few nukes in Ukraine (which I doubt) we will respond with more sanctions. That's it. We already gave away that we don't have the stomach for anything else.

a reply to: face23785

Then why in the world would he launch missiles into strictly civilian targets? Over, and over again. And not just in the east. Besides, pretty much moot point since his original intention was to surround Kyiv. The fact that he failed first time around won't stop him from trying again.

originally posted by: face23785

originally posted by: IAMTAT
a reply to: TrueAmerican

I predicted this months ago.
Russia will use Belarus to tie down Ukrainian troops in the NW while it focuses on consolidating gains in the SE.

It was obvious early on that this would be the strategy.

It would also fit into my theory about what Putin's end goal is. I don't believe he ever wanted the entire country, just parts of it in the east.

Let's not ignore the vast Lithium-Oxide deposits in the disputed areas.
timcast.com...

The deposits are the key to Joe's New Green Deal.
He doesn't give a crap about Ukrainians.