Nipate
Forum => Kenya Discussion => Topic started by: Nowayhaha on October 02, 2022, 02:19:48 PM
-
https://www.rt.com/russia/563788-referendums-ukraine-nato-dilemma/
NATO in the horns of a dilemma after former Ukrainian regions vote to join Russia
Moscow is flipping the bloc's script by moving to absorb Kiev's lost lands, thus switching the fight to its own turf
Scott Ritter is a former US Marine Corps intelligence officer and author of 'Disarmament in the Time of Perestroika: Arms Control and the End of the Soviet Union.' He served in the Soviet Union as an inspector implementing the INF Treaty, in General Schwarzkopf’s staff during the Gulf War, and from 1991-1998 as a UN weapons inspector.
@RealScottRitter@ScottRitter
© Sputnik / Ramil Sitdikov
By infusing tens of billions of dollars’ worth of military aid into Ukraine, NATO produced a “game-changing” dynamic designed to throw Russia off balance. By undertaking the referendums in Kherson, Zaporozhye, Donetsk, and Lugansk, Russia changed the game altogether.
The ancient Greeks spoke of lemma as representing a logical premise, a matter taken for granted. This contrasted with a dilemma, or “dual premise”, where one would be presented with an either/or proposition. The Romans furthered this notion, referring to a “double premise” as argumentum cornutum, of the “horned argument,” because by answering one argument, an individual would be impaled by the logic of the second. Thus are the ancient roots of the modern idiom, “on the horns of a dilemma.”
This is the ultimate objective of maneuver warfare, for example: to position your forces in such a manner as to present the enemy with no good option – should they react to one pressing threat, they would find themselves overwhelmed by the other.
The Russian military operation that has been underway in Ukraine for more than seven months now has provided ample examples of the military forces of both sides being confronted with a situation that compelled them to alter their preferred course of action; the Russian “diversion” against Kiev early on in the SMO prevented the Ukrainians from reinforcing their forces in eastern Ukraine, and the recently concluded Ukrainian counteroffensive in Kharkov compelled a hasty Russian withdrawal from a significant swath of previously occupied Ukrainian territory.
Both examples cited presented one side with a lemma, or a single problem, which needed to be addressed. But neither was able to put its opponent “on the horns of a dilemma,” forcing a response which would result in impalement regardless of the option chosen. The reason for this is simple – very rarely will competent military commanders allow themselves to be presented with a military problem for which there is no viable response. War, it seems, is hard work, and dilemmas don’t fall from trees.
Or do they? Ever since Boris Johnston flew to Kiev in April to convince Ukrainian President Vladimir Zelensky to pull out of peace talks then ongoing with Russia in the Turkish city of Istanbul, NATO has embarked on a program designed to provide Ukraine with tens of billions of dollars in military and financial assistance, including the transfer of modern heavy weapons and the use of facilities on Western soil where tens of thousands of Ukrainian troops could be trained and organized without fear of Russian intervention.
The purpose behind the NATO infusion of weaponry into Ukraine was straightforward – to empower Ukraine to not only lengthen the conflict, but also to undertake offensive military operations designed to evict Russia from what Kiev and its backers consider occupied Ukrainian territory, including the Donbass and Crimea. The counteroffensive in Kharkov in early September underscored the serious consequences of NATO’s actions – even though, given the massive loss of life and material suffered by the attacking Ukrainian forces, made the Kharkov victory Pyrrhic in nature, it was a Ukrainian victory, and one which compelled a Russian retreat.
By transforming the Ukrainian army into a NATO army which was manned by Ukrainians, the US-led bloc had, in fact, changed the nature of the game from a straightforward Russia-versus-Ukraine “special military operation” into a “Russia-versus-the collective West” struggle where the military resources originally allocated by Moscow to the fight were now insufficient to the task.
Advantage, Ukraine/NATO.
READ MORE
Putin recognizes independence of Zaporozhye and Kherson
Russia, however, was not taking the game-changing actions of NATO standing still. Responding to the new reality on the ground in Ukraine, Russian President Vladimir Putin opted not to simply up the ante in this new NATO-driven game of increasing military power but change the game altogether. Not only did he order the partial mobilization of some 300,000 Russian reservists to reinforce the troops currently committed to the SMO, Putin also approved referendums in the four territories where Russian forces are presently fighting – Kherson and Zaporozhye (formerly occupied Ukrainian regions), and Donetsk and Lugansk (former regions of Ukraine, de-facto independent since 2014). These referendums asked the citizens of these four territories one simple question: do you wish to become part of Russia?
After five days of voting, the results from all four territories were clear – by an overwhelming majority, the participants in the referendums approved the proposition. Shortly thereafter, they were incorporated into the Russian Federation. What was once Ukraine has now become Mother Russia.
Russia didn’t just change the rules of the game – it changed the game itself. Instead of Ukrainian forces fighting Russian forces on the territory of Ukraine, any future combat carried out by Ukraine against Russian forces would represent an attack on the Russian homeland itself.
Where does this leave NATO? The bloc's leadership has made it clear from day one that it is not seeking direct confrontation with Russia. While its members have poured in tens of billions of dollars of material into Ukraine to help reconstitute its military, and provided critical logistics, intelligence, and communications support to Ukraine, it has repeatedly and insistently stated that it has no desire to fight a war with Russia directly and has made it clear that it would rather have the Ukrainians serve as a de facto NATO proxy in resisting Moscow.
NATO has gone “all in” both economically and politically when it comes to supporting Ukraine, to the extent that some of its members, having stripped their respective military structures of equipment and material, have nothing left to give. Despite this, European political and economic elites continue to articulate their strong support for Ukraine going forward.
LIVE
2 Oct, 2022 09:53
HomeRussia & FSU
NATO in the horns of a dilemma after former Ukrainian regions vote to join Russia
Moscow is flipping the bloc's script by moving to absorb Kiev's lost lands, thus switching the fight to its own turf
Scott Ritter is a former US Marine Corps intelligence officer and author of 'Disarmament in the Time of Perestroika: Arms Control and the End of the Soviet Union.' He served in the Soviet Union as an inspector implementing the INF Treaty, in General Schwarzkopf’s staff during the Gulf War, and from 1991-1998 as a UN weapons inspector.
@RealScottRitter@ScottRitter
© Sputnik / Ramil Sitdikov
By infusing tens of billions of dollars’ worth of military aid into Ukraine, NATO produced a “game-changing” dynamic designed to throw Russia off balance. By undertaking the referendums in Kherson, Zaporozhye, Donetsk, and Lugansk, Russia changed the game altogether.
The ancient Greeks spoke of lemma as representing a logical premise, a matter taken for granted. This contrasted with a dilemma, or “dual premise”, where one would be presented with an either/or proposition. The Romans furthered this notion, referring to a “double premise” as argumentum cornutum, of the “horned argument,” because by answering one argument, an individual would be impaled by the logic of the second. Thus are the ancient roots of the modern idiom, “on the horns of a dilemma.”
This is the ultimate objective of maneuver warfare, for example: to position your forces in such a manner as to present the enemy with no good option – should they react to one pressing threat, they would find themselves overwhelmed by the other.
The Russian military operation that has been underway in Ukraine for more than seven months now has provided ample examples of the military forces of both sides being confronted with a situation that compelled them to alter their preferred course of action; the Russian “diversion” against Kiev early on in the SMO prevented the Ukrainians from reinforcing their forces in eastern Ukraine, and the recently concluded Ukrainian counteroffensive in Kharkov compelled a hasty Russian withdrawal from a significant swath of previously occupied Ukrainian territory.
READ MORE
Erdogan speaks about referendums on joining Russia
Both examples cited presented one side with a lemma, or a single problem, which needed to be addressed. But neither was able to put its opponent “on the horns of a dilemma,” forcing a response which would result in impalement regardless of the option chosen. The reason for this is simple – very rarely will competent military commanders allow themselves to be presented with a military problem for which there is no viable response. War, it seems, is hard work, and dilemmas don’t fall from trees.
Or do they? Ever since Boris Johnston flew to Kiev in April to convince Ukrainian President Vladimir Zelensky to pull out of peace talks then ongoing with Russia in the Turkish city of Istanbul, NATO has embarked on a program designed to provide Ukraine with tens of billions of dollars in military and financial assistance, including the transfer of modern heavy weapons and the use of facilities on Western soil where tens of thousands of Ukrainian troops could be trained and organized without fear of Russian intervention.
The purpose behind the NATO infusion of weaponry into Ukraine was straightforward – to empower Ukraine to not only lengthen the conflict, but also to undertake offensive military operations designed to evict Russia from what Kiev and its backers consider occupied Ukrainian territory, including the Donbass and Crimea. The counteroffensive in Kharkov in early September underscored the serious consequences of NATO’s actions – even though, given the massive loss of life and material suffered by the attacking Ukrainian forces, made the Kharkov victory Pyrrhic in nature, it was a Ukrainian victory, and one which compelled a Russian retreat.
By transforming the Ukrainian army into a NATO army which was manned by Ukrainians, the US-led bloc had, in fact, changed the nature of the game from a straightforward Russia-versus-Ukraine “special military operation” into a “Russia-versus-the collective West” struggle where the military resources originally allocated by Moscow to the fight were now insufficient to the task.
Advantage, Ukraine/NATO.
READ MORE
Putin recognizes independence of Zaporozhye and Kherson
Russia, however, was not taking the game-changing actions of NATO standing still. Responding to the new reality on the ground in Ukraine, Russian President Vladimir Putin opted not to simply up the ante in this new NATO-driven game of increasing military power but change the game altogether. Not only did he order the partial mobilization of some 300,000 Russian reservists to reinforce the troops currently committed to the SMO, Putin also approved referendums in the four territories where Russian forces are presently fighting – Kherson and Zaporozhye (formerly occupied Ukrainian regions), and Donetsk and Lugansk (former regions of Ukraine, de-facto independent since 2014). These referendums asked the citizens of these four territories one simple question: do you wish to become part of Russia?
After five days of voting, the results from all four territories were clear – by an overwhelming majority, the participants in the referendums approved the proposition. Shortly thereafter, they were incorporated into the Russian Federation. What was once Ukraine has now become Mother Russia.
Russia didn’t just change the rules of the game – it changed the game itself. Instead of Ukrainian forces fighting Russian forces on the territory of Ukraine, any future combat carried out by Ukraine against Russian forces would represent an attack on the Russian homeland itself.
Where does this leave NATO? The bloc's leadership has made it clear from day one that it is not seeking direct confrontation with Russia. While its members have poured in tens of billions of dollars of material into Ukraine to help reconstitute its military, and provided critical logistics, intelligence, and communications support to Ukraine, it has repeatedly and insistently stated that it has no desire to fight a war with Russia directly and has made it clear that it would rather have the Ukrainians serve as a de facto NATO proxy in resisting Moscow.
NATO has gone “all in” both economically and politically when it comes to supporting Ukraine, to the extent that some of its members, having stripped their respective military structures of equipment and material, have nothing left to give. Despite this, European political and economic elites continue to articulate their strong support for Ukraine going forward.
READ MORE
Kremlin reveals next step for former Ukrainian regions
This support, however, was predicated on the fundamental assumption that by providing Ukraine with this massive level of support, NATO would not get directly involved in a conflict with Moscow. But Russia, by transforming the battleground from one being fought on Ukrainian soil to one where it's now defending its own land, has flipped the script.
NATO, having overcommitted to Ukraine, now finds itself “on the horns of a dilemma” – if it continues to provide massive material and financial support to Ukraine, it will, in effect, become a direct party to the conflict, something no one in the bloc wants. However, if it backs away from supporting Ukraine, the various Western political leaders and institutions which have made support for Kiev a sacred obligation will be seen as going back on their word.
How NATO opts to proceed has yet to be manifest, but indications are that it will not be in a manner which continues to double down on supporting Ukraine no matter what. Secretary General Stoltenberg’s tepid speech condemning Russia while showing no enthusiasm for Zelensky’s “accelerated application” for membership is indicative of the less-than-resolute nature of its support for Kiev.
NATO now will find its role diminished by the consequences of the Russian mobilization and referendums. Years from now, when the history of the conflict is finally written, the decision by President Putin to simultaneously mobilize the Russian reserves while absorbing the territory of southern and eastern Ukraine into the Russian Federation will serve as one of the premier modern-history examples of putting an adversary “on the horns of a dilemma.” The effective neutering of NATO by this action will more than likely be seen as a turning point in the conflict, one which sealed the fate of Ukraine in the face of an inevitable Russian victory.
The statements, views and opinions expressed in this column are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of RT.
-
That careless double copy & paste rightly ends in the disclaimer: The statements, views and opinions expressed in this column are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of RT.
Hitler, Noway and Putin same WhatsApp group. NO DILEMMA HERE, JUST Putin repeating History!
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/4/4b/France_map_Lambert-93_with_regions_and_departments-occupation_Belgium_inset.png/440px-France_map_Lambert-93_with_regions_and_departments-occupation_Belgium_inset.png)
In December 1944, with Allied forces having landed in Europe and pushing towards Berlin from all sides, Germany made a very strange announcement. They proclaimed that they had annexed into Germany, The Reichskommissariat of Belgium and Northern France. What was strange was that these territories were no longer under control of the Germans but Hitler/Gobbels put out propaganda that the Battle of the Bulge would reclaim them. So in that same month, the Germans mounted their last major offensive campaign on the Western Front during World War II which fizzled out in defeat 30 days later on 16th January 1945.
So what was it about?
It was a MORALE-BOOSTING propaganda stunt.
The annexation occurred on 15 December 1944, the day before the start of the Battle of the Bulge. It was basically a statement of confidence that the offensive would be successful.
Goebbels had also spread rumors the ultimate aim of the offensive was Paris, only later did the German soldiers realize the real aim was to reach the Belgium port of Antwerp. It failed anyway
And so here lies the parallels of Putin. Putin annexes 4 regions of Ukraine yet barely 18 hours later Lyman - a part of those territories annexed falls to Ukraine. Bure kabisa.
Germany put a clause in its constitution that any land annexed could not be taken away - not - even by the Third Reich. Same thing here. Russia has in its constitution that no territories annexed can be given back - not even by the Kremlin. We know of course that German never held onto those parts of Belgium and France, because the war ended 3 months later in German defeat. So too, it will be in the 4 territories, Russian or no Russian constitution, the Russians are going back to pre-February 2014 borders. Bure kabisa Putin, Noway.
-
What is the use of anexing territories that you do not control and loosing fast the ones you are controling?
Putin is now figthing for his life. He knows if Russians are pushed back to the borders, his regime will end adruptly.
-
Its called fait accompli. Entering a new stage of war.Lyman the town you are claiming has been lost hosts less than 5 thousand people. Russia has tactically retreated for a reason same as they did in Mariupol untill they came back and circled the neo nazi militia. Mariupol is now part of Russia.
What I notice you guys are getting drunk on Western Media news.
Same media is saying Putin cant use nuclear weapons. Ive studied Putin , I can tell when he is serious. I see him not only using tactical nuclear weapons but also hitting strikes in Poland transit routes where all the weapons are entering Ukraine.
If you are in Europe prepare to relocate .It will be a cold winter.
What is the use of anexing territories that you do not control and loosing fast the ones you are controling?
Putin is now figthing for his life. He knows if Russians are pushed back to the borders, his regime will end adruptly.
-
Does Putin have a monoply over nuclear weapons?
Its called fait accompli. Entering a new stage of war.Lyman the town you are claiming has been lost hosts less than 5 thousand people. Russia has tactically retreated for a reason same as they did in Mariupol untill they came back and circled the neo nazi militia. Mariupol is now part of Russia.
What I notice you guys are getting drunk on Western Media news.
Same media is saying Putin cant use nuclear weapons. Ive studied Putin , I can tell when he is serious. I see him not only using tactical nuclear weapons but also hitting strikes in Poland transit routes where all the weapons are entering Ukraine.
If you are in Europe prepare to relocate .It will be a cold winter.
-
Good question. Let the west also use Nuclear weapons we see where it will end.
Putin is ready to use , what about the West ?
Does Putin have a monoply over nuclear weapons?
Its called fait accompli. Entering a new stage of war.Lyman the town you are claiming has been lost hosts less than 5 thousand people. Russia has tactically retreated for a reason same as they did in Mariupol untill they came back and circled the neo nazi militia. Mariupol is now part of Russia.
What I notice you guys are getting drunk on Western Media news.
Same media is saying Putin cant use nuclear weapons. Ive studied Putin , I can tell when he is serious. I see him not only using tactical nuclear weapons but also hitting strikes in Poland transit routes where all the weapons are entering Ukraine.
If you are in Europe prepare to relocate .It will be a cold winter.
-
Does Putin have a monoply over nuclear weapons?
Its called fait accompli. Entering a new stage of war.Lyman the town you are claiming has been lost hosts less than 5 thousand people. Russia has tactically retreated for a reason same as they did in Mariupol untill they came back and circled the neo nazi militia. Mariupol is now part of Russia.
What I notice you guys are getting drunk on Western Media news.
Same media is saying Putin cant use nuclear weapons. Ive studied Putin , I can tell when he is serious. I see him not only using tactical nuclear weapons but also hitting strikes in Poland transit routes where all the weapons are entering Ukraine.
If you are in Europe prepare to relocate .It will be a cold winter.
And it would be tempting to use them now, with his soldiers being slaughtered almost at will and nothing seeming to work. But he won't use them, because he doesn't know what America would do in reaction.
-
I now see why Western nations invest in media , to brainwash people. The worst reaction Western Nations would do is replicate use if Nuclear Weapons and that would be end of everyone. Ask yourself why they have not set foot officially in Ukraine. They feat becoming party of the war. Or why they are not striking Russia if they know how to react.
Does Putin have a monoply over nuclear weapons?
Its called fait accompli. Entering a new stage of war.Lyman the town you are claiming has been lost hosts less than 5 thousand people. Russia has tactically retreated for a reason same as they did in Mariupol untill they came back and circled the neo nazi militia. Mariupol is now part of Russia.
What I notice you guys are getting drunk on Western Media news.
Same media is saying Putin cant use nuclear weapons. Ive studied Putin , I can tell when he is serious. I see him not only using tactical nuclear weapons but also hitting strikes in Poland transit routes where all the weapons are entering Ukraine.
If you are in Europe prepare to relocate .It will be a cold winter.
And it would be tempting to use them now, with his soldiers being slaughtered almost at will and nothing seeming to work. But he won't use them, because he doesn't know what America would do in reaction.