Hacker News Reader

Comment by danso | Hacker News Reader

Sorry, your hypothetical is just too far detached from reality to debate — you really think Russia in 2022 is remotely strong enough to sweep across Europe, and the only thing stopping that ambition is fear of MAD? Huh?

> I don't know that NATO has the guts to give Putin that bloody nose.

Again…what? Based on NATO’s military inaction re: Ukraine, you’ve concluded that NATO will also do nothing if Russia were to actually attack NATO itself? The whole point of being in NATO is having the collective backing of its allied members.

View on HN

The (exaggerated) scenario is less of an attack but thought exercise on where the line for taking action lies. I went with belligerent actions over attack or small land grabs without casualties. Escalation from NATO let's say is "NATO declares war on Russia for violating sovereignty of Poland". Next? Will NATO liquidate Russian tank columns? As long as I've been alive, neither US nor NATO have ever actively engaged a nuclear state. I think stating "NATO reacts collectively" is kind of hand-waving the reality of engaging a nuclear super-power in any kind of military engagement. It's always been a handle-with-care situation.

And no, I don't think Putin is going to try to conquer Europe (at least I hope he's not that mad). I just wonder where the line for action is and whether it's "touching NATO soil" as you imply or something much more vague and flexible once the prospect of actual war is real.

Turkey (a NATO member) “liquidated” a couple of Russian fighter jets when they violated Turkey’s airspace during their Syrian assault.[0]

So it’s not a stretch to think that once a Russian tank would cross into Poland it would be met with immediate lethal force.

[0] https://news.yahoo.com/downing-russia-jet-stab-back-putin-13...

Thanks for this, this is a good data point for NATO action. It's a little different in that it seems more accidental than intentional though.

Wasn't a NATO action. Was a split second decision by Erdoga so he can play his power games.

> “liquidated” a couple of Russian fighter jets

It was one jet, and it wasn't fighter jet, but assault jet, it didn't carry any AA missiles and couldn't defend himself.

Was it a frogfoot?

Fencer: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2015_Russian_Sukhoi_Su-24_shoo...

Didn't matter, it violated airspace.

I mean the line for action lies in the NATO treaty. NATO is not a philosophical concept it’s literally the outgrowth of written documents with the power of law. The T stands for treaty.

The line is the borders of the NATO countries. I don’t think it’s particularly controversial that if someone drove a tank into Poland offensively it would be promptly incinerated.

I think the question is how does that escalate. If Putin is just taunting NATO with a few tanks crossing the border, and artillery takes out the tanks, that might be the end of it. But at want point does a broader escalation turn into a total war ... which bring in the nukes?

I think when one side sees it as an existential threat then the gloves come off. Russia will launch nukes before the government fell. United States would launch nukes before the government fell.

It's pretty clear actually. Anything that enters NATO country - is destroyed with conventional forces.

If Russia launches nukes - there's nuclear response, but at that point it's not really "escalation", just extended suicide by Russia.

NATO clearly answers this, No First Use. Individual countries can deploy though. US says no first use except in response to WMDs (so bioweapons or chemical weapons).

By clearly defining it, it makes it less likely to escalate to accidental MAD. We know the line, Russia knows the line. And they know the potential consequences should they choose to cross it.

On the other hand Russia has recently been opening their doctrine to allow nuclear strikes in response to conventional attacks. Further they threaten nuclear responses. They're intentionally blurring the lines because they feel they can get away shenanigans in the confusion.

I think the only thing you can do when faced with MAD is to completely ignore it and conduct your war as if it didn't exist.

Anything else would put you at a severe disadvantage.

The world would have ended by now had people followed that advice 50 years ago

So you are proposing that the air force can just start pummeling the air defences around Moscov? Because that would be a viable counter step if not for MAD.

A viable counter step would be to deny Russia air superiority in Ukraine and to attack any troops crossing the border from Belarus, for example. Not to go and attack the capital of Russia.

Yes, I don't understand why Biden is being shy about this.

You mean besides the reason that he is borderline senile and has been a completely ineffective president in every other regard besides Ukraine?

I don’t think ‘the air force’, whichever that may be, has enough assets nearby to do such a thing, nor that it would be particularly productive even if you ignored MAD.

The goal here is to prevent one invasion, not start another one.

But there ought to be enough fighters in Europe to swat anything flying in Ukraine out of the sky.

Yes if Russian forces invade Poland then NATO will defend it. There is no serious doubt about this. The only question is whether NATO would confine their actions to Poland, or escalate the conflict by conducting pre-emptive attacks on other Russian forces outside of Poland.

NATO will sent prayers and weapons while quickly retreating to Germany.

> Will NATO liquidate Russian tank columns?

It will or there will be no NATO. It's the whole point. Certainly Poland won't just give up not to make other NATO countries angry.

Every Russian general is born with the ambition of driving his tanks to the Atlantic Ocean. And that won't be much different from what Tsar Alexander did in 1812/1813 with similiar meager resources.

So yes, Putin probably is considering this scenario at least in his wet dreams...

And it seems like largest country in Europe (by area), with 200 thousand strong army, tons od most sophisticated NATO weapons and 8 years of combat experience have collpased like a house of cards within 24 hours. Do you think Polish or German army will do any better? Or does Russia have better opinion of these armies? So, yes this is possible now... Thereotically...

And history knows larger miscalculations...

Poland and Germany are full NATO members. NATO was clear they would not deploy to Ukraine and that they will deploy to protect any NATO member.

Ukraine has 200k soldiers. But most of them are grunts with rifles. Russia has all kinds of equipment and combined arms. You can't really compare the two.

certainly no comparison in a conventional war. Ukraine could be as costly to Putin as Afghanistan was to the US.

Ukraine could also be as costly to Putin as Afghanistan was to the USSR.

Afghanistan is called the graveyard of empires for a reason.

>Every Russian general is born with the ambition of driving his tanks to the Atlantic Ocean.

France may not like that. They're not in NATO. But they have nuclear weapons.

France is in NATO.

France is one of the founding countries in NATO. Indeed, NATO's progenitor was a bilateral treaty between France and the UK (the "Treaty of Dunkirk").

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_NATO

France is a member of NATO, they entered NATO in 1949 • Reference, The NATO website: https://www.nato.int/nato-welcome/index.html

France is part of NATO. They backed out of the integrated command structure in the 60's (but still remained an treaty member) and rejoined in 2009. I think they still reserve the right to not put their nuclear arsenal under allied command.

France is a founding member.

> France may not like that. They're not in NATO.

Yes, they are, and have been since NATO was founded. From 1966-2009 they did not participated in the Integrated Military Command Structure, despite remaining fully in the alliance.

They still don't participate in the Nuclear Planning Council, and their troops are not put under permanent UN command in peacetime.

> their troops are not put under permanent UN command in peacetime.

This should be “NATO command” not “UN command”.

Yeah I see now France is back. I know they were a founding member of NATO I'm not doubting that. But they left in the 1960s...sort of, but were in sort of but separate, then back in for sure in 2009.

It’s a bit of a stretch to claim that Ukraine has collapsed. They’re massively outgunned, yet they’re still standing 24 hours later.

The balance of power is similar to Poland in 1939. I expect it will take approx 2 weeks (1-3) for Putin to force the last regular Ukrainian army unit to lay down their arms, if their leaders don't surrender before that time.

> And it seems like largest country in Europe (by area), with 200 thousand strong army, tons od most sophisticated NATO weapons

Where did you get this idea?

Ukrain has only a tiny airforce, no modern air defences, and most heavy military hardware, from artillery to tanks, is cold war vintage.

NATO never supplied it with modern fighter jets and missile systems, if it had, Russian helicopters would not be circling Kiev right now.

"Every Russian general is born with the ambition of driving his tanks to the Atlantic Ocean"

This is not helpfull, Russia has the idea that it should be able to do as it pleasesnl in its sphere of influence, but I never met anyone thinking it stretched to include anything past former eastern block borders.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com