Russia’s ‘dangerous military brinkmanship’ risks ‘catastrophic’ clash with NATO, report warns


#1

Russia is engaged in “dangerous brinkmanship” toward NATO and Nordic nations in its military moves, with almost 40 incidents of incursions and close encounters since March, according to a European security research group.

The European Leadership Network said the incidents present a “highly disturbing picture” of violations of national airspace, emergency air-defence scrambles, narrowly avoided mid-air collisions, close encounters at sea and other dangerous actions on a regular basis over a wide area.

Perpetuating a volatile standoff between a nuclear-armed state and a nuclear-armed alliance and its partners “is risky at best,” the group said in the report released today. “It could prove catastrophic at worst.”

news.nationalpost.com/2014/11/10/russias-dangerous-military-brinkmanship-risks-catastrophic-clash-with-nato-report-warns/

Full list of incidents involving Russian military and Nato since March 2014
independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/full-list-of-incidents-involving-russian-military-and-nato-since-march-2014-9851309.html


#2

Russia to designate U.S. and NATO as adversaries in updated military doctrine

“Co-operation between Russia and China is extremely important to keep the peace in the framework of international law, making it more stable,” Mr Putin told his Chinese counterpart, just two weeks after he accused the US of destabilising the world by frequently violating international law.

Russia’s updated military doctrine is expected to target Nato and the US more clearly as the Ukraine crisis has frayed Moscow’s relations with the western alliance. The current doctrine lists only Nato expansion, foreign troop deployments in neighbouring states, destabilisation in certain countries and deployment of missile defence systems as “external military dangers”.

People familiar with the document said Nato and the US would be openly designated as threats or adversaries in the document’s new version, due to be published next month.

ft.com/intl/cms/s/0/31e95c5e-68b8-11e4-af00-00144feabdc0.html#axzz3Ig1JODg1


#3

Great.

The window of some 25 years for peace has just closed.

Cold War 2, here we come. And we haven’t paid off the first one yet!

ICXC NIKA


#4

This is just sabre rattling. Nothing more. Any incidents must be taken in context and a lengthy study of the publicly available military literature needs to be undertaken. Russia does something bad or in violation of international law and the US drops bombs on Syria?

“In times of peace, prepare for war.” It’s mostly about land, money and trade. Today, most of the world’s billionaires are in Moscow. What are they doing there? War costs money. China is developing the infrastructure to compete with the West, led by the United States. “Incidents” amount to nothing when reported to the average viewer/reader. Only by studying the motivations of all parties involved do the incidents make sense. US troops are stationed around the world. Why? All the media wants is to manipulate the public. Educating the public, especially today, means doing your own research from credible, printed resources. The internet can be a source of a lot of nothing, half truths and lies. Getting the facts, studying military doctrine and the interplay of the nations with the greatest capability to cause trouble takes a lot of time to reach a level of knowledge to assess this.

Peace,
Ed


#5

I’m not sure if Russia knows what it’s doing and has some master plan here or if they are just pretending they do while trying to be a general nuisance.


#6

Does US ever sail ships or fly planes near Russia or China?


#7

There was never an end to the Cold War. Once the nuclear bomb was invented the implications of it could not be undone. The only thing that has changed is how much or how little the average person thinks about the possibility of a nuclear war. But the current crisis with Russia was recently started by the Western nations all because Russia came out against homosexuality.


#8

Both the Soviet Union (now The Russian Federation) and the United States realized nuclear war was not a reasonable military option in the early 1950s. The threat was all that mattered. Military thinking was based on brinksmanship and codified in MAD - Mutually Assured Destruction. If some crazy Russians decided to start a nuclear war, the US response was to destroy Russia, including sending additional ICBMs launched at predetermined targets from deeply buried installations up to one year later. Once hydrogen bombs and neutron bombs became available, both sides knew they could gain nothing in return. Based on current information, we can destroy the earth twice over as opposed to four times over during the Cold War.

Those who think a “limited” nuclear exchange is possible are simply not thinking.

Peace,
Ed


#9

Not like Russia does.

Nor do any other NATO countries.


#10

American and Allied aircraft have violated Russian and Chinese airspace in secret for decades. There are books that record the early days of the Cold War and secret reconnaissance flights over both countries or near enough to activate more of their coastal search radars - which was part of the plan. Military planners had to know where these hidden radars were in case of attack.

Ed


#11

I don’t know how many times over we could destroy the world, but I do know that the U.S. deterrent force of Minuteman III ICBM’s has shrunk from 1150 during the cold war to 450 ageing facilities now, while Russia is building a new generation of ICBM’s. A nation doesn’t need to actually launch nuclear missiles to use them for nuclear blackmail. However, I’m not sure that Putin really considers a nuclear exchange as unwinnable.


#12

:yawn:


#13

So not like Russia then, and the recent incursions which are blatant, belligerent, incur on civilian airspace, and which pose danger to commercial flights.


#14

One wonders about all of this, and the context within which it’s occurring.

Russia has always been aggressive toward its neighbors, and its people seem to like that.
It’s something, at least, when the economy there stinks, which it does. Pride can sometimes make up for privation, psychologically.

Russia has long been an exporter of commodity goods, and has been dependent on them for its economy. Right now, the big one is petroleum. Russia has a lot of it and will undoubtedly produce plenty into the indefinite future. But what does it do to an economy like that when oil is below $80? Do there need to be more national pride elevators to make up for what that will do? Will gnawing on another weak state make up for oil at $70?

We don’t know, and while I’m sure Putin is just as cagey as he seems, I don’t know that he does either.

Putin is reputed to be worth as much as Bill Gates, all from corruption. When Russians see their economy sinking will they resent it, or will they be like some pre-Revolutionary people who were just fine with Tsarist grandeur even if they, themselves, had nothing?

I don’t, for a moment, doubt that Putin would march right into Berlin if he thought he could. Russia’s other historic economic prop has been looting conquered peoples, and Berlin, even Warsaw, would provide a lot of opportunities…at least until the loot ran out as it did when the Soviet Union went bust.

Putin will seize eastern ukraine as sure as he seized Crimea, and the Putin supporters in the world (and on CAF) will deny that ambition until it’s accomplished, and then they’ll make excuses for it. The big question is where will Putin stop, and how much sabre-rattling will he think necessary to cow the West into letting him seize more?

Personally, I don’t think we have seen the last of Putin’s conquests, nor of his threatening military moves. I think he has Obama’s number, and he knows he has two years for sure in which to take what he wants with impunity.


#15

Not altogether.

He can’t afford to tack off our new Congress.

Question is, what can it do about him?

ICXC NIKA


#16

Meanwhile NATO member Turkey continues it’s provocations against little Cyprus hurriyetdailynews.com/turkish-navy-authorized-over-oil-crisis-with-greek-cyprus–.aspx?pageID=238&nID=74088&NewsCatID=510


#17

Oh yeah he has Obama’s and poor little Americas number. He totally insulted Obama by dealing with Ukraine… wait what does that have to do with america or even NATO? Putins such a mean man, only the west can wage war when they feel like it, no one else can. Im so glad that you know that he wants to invade berlin too. Its a good thing that those Ukrainian change of governments happened before he invaded Ukraine or Putin would have been so exposed for land grabbing now he has an excuse… or maybe thats why he did it?? Btw his approval ratings in Russia must keep you awake at night but don’t worry Russians don’t want a western yes man for president.


#18

What will Russia win? Radioactive fallout?

Let’s take a quick inventory.

ICBMs deployed by both the Soviet Union and the United States in 1959.
Then MIRV. Multiple Independently targetable Reentry Vehicles. Multiple warheads on one ICBM.
Then MARV. MAneuverable Reentry Vehicles. Yes, the threat of a warhead being tracked and shot down meant that a warhead could change course on its way to its final target.

In nuclear war, no one wins.

Ed


#19

Danger to commercial flights? Where is your evidence? The military has its own radar and satellite assets that can read a license plate on a car from space. I hope no one believes for one moment that the NATO members, and especially the United States, don’t know where every Russian airfield is, what aircraft they have and can track them in real time should they start heading in the direction of anyone’s airspace. And the fact is, whenever a Russian aircraft flies too close to the American coast, the military sends up fighters to shadow it until it begins to head away.

We flew the U-2 over Russia numerous times. Russian interceptors could see it but could not reach its altitude due to a danger of engine flameout. Then the SR-71 appeared. There is evidence that at least two SR-71s are available for operational missions after their alleged phase-out for another aircraft being used for the same purpose. This new aircraft has not been positively identified.

Ed


#20

Probably right. And don’t forget Putin has cheated on Russia’s obligations under the INF (Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces) Treaty, and that Putin’s Russia has tactical nuclear weapons at its disposal. Russia’s military wargames like Zapad end off with Poland’s capital Warsaw being destroyed by nuclear weapons. How reassuring to the Poles. Putin praises Russia’s nuclear weapons at Kremlin-sponsored youth camps like Zeliger run by youth “political commissars” from theKremlin-run Russian Nashi youth group.

What does it say of Putin when one of his Vice Speakers of the Russian Duma Vladimir Zhirinovsky threatens to nuke countries in Europe and Putin, rather than condemning, laughs and says Zhirinovsky “always gets the party started.” President Obama gives naive speeches about ridding the world of nuclear weapons and Putin’s Russia uses them in war games against civilian populations.

25 years ago the Berlin Wall fell down. Around this time, Putin was a KGB agent in Dresden, East Germany, burning and shredding as fast as he could the KGB’s documents on the East German civilian population. The KGB worked hand-in-hand with the deplorable East German secret police, the Stasi, and 25 years ago Putin was threatening the East Germans who wanted to put an end to the communist tyranny that the KGB must be left alone. Putin, without compunction or later regret, worked for the side that shot at innocent people jumping the Wall to freedom.

In fact, on Larry King Live some years back on CNN, Putin in all seriousness compared working to the KGB to being a journalist - the KGB, the organization that ran the Gulag. Putin never takes part in any commemmorations to the millions killed by communism, but praises the KGB to this day.

Putin is not fighting for Russia and Russians but for his own autocratic rule in my opinion and I hope more Russians come to understand this in the near future as many do now (like the Russian mothers and fathers of Russian soldiers sent into Ukraine secretly and who died there and get buried in unmarked graves back in Russia as Putin wishes the truth to be hidden: if these Russian mothers ask questions of Putin they get called "foreign agents’ by Putin’s regime).

Also, as one European foreign minister put it: "“Should it [oil] go decisively below $80 a barrel and stay there for two years he’s in trouble. But what’s bad for him is not necessarily good for us. He’s a gambler. And he’s got a lowered sense of danger. He’ll take these huge gambles because the real danger for Putin is his own life. He can’t let go. He can’t leave the Kremlin. Once you’ve spilt blood, once you’ve had apartment bombings, once you’ve sent death squads abroad, once you’ve had Georgia, Ukraine, all these mothers, and all the bodies of soldiers being disposed of from secret wars… You can’t just let go.”

In my opinion, Putin is fighting for Putin now, to the end.


DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.