Russia Invades Ukraine XVI
- Thread starter Tidewater
- Start date
- Status
He wrote a bad article about this last year. Hang on I’ll dig it up.
Here it is.
seymourhersh.substack.com
How America Took Out The Nord Stream Pipeline
The New York Times called it a “mystery,” but the United States executed a covert sea operation that was kept secret—until now
seymourhersh.substack.com
What struck me about the Hirsch article was that SEALs have a reporting to Congress requirement, but conventional Navy (allegedly) do not, so the US government used conventional divers.
Of course, Navy conventional (non-SEAL) divers have reporting requirements as well, just up regular Navy channels, so using conventional Navy divers would not give the kind of cover Hirsch says it does.
Of course, Navy conventional (non-SEAL) divers have reporting requirements as well, just up regular Navy channels, so using conventional Navy divers would not give the kind of cover Hirsch says it does.
it was one of those articles that was rich on specifics but there were a lot of easily debunked claims in there.
A lot of people accepted it as true because it would have been a pretty complex caper lol.
This is interesting. This is 20 minutes, but it includes useful; and relevant history.
Baltic Troops Ready To Enter Ukraine
Lithuania, Latvia, and Estonia talking about sending troops to assist Ukraine whether NATO approves or not. NATO member states can undertake ops without NATO approvla, they simply cannot call it a NATO op.
How Russia would react to that is an open question. They might recognize bilateral Estonian-Ukrainian action for what it is, or they might say, "Well, now NATO has entered the conflict directly, soi attacking Estonia inside Estonia is fair game." How would NATO react to that?
Baltic Troops Ready To Enter Ukraine
Lithuania, Latvia, and Estonia talking about sending troops to assist Ukraine whether NATO approves or not. NATO member states can undertake ops without NATO approvla, they simply cannot call it a NATO op.
How Russia would react to that is an open question. They might recognize bilateral Estonian-Ukrainian action for what it is, or they might say, "Well, now NATO has entered the conflict directly, soi attacking Estonia inside Estonia is fair game." How would NATO react to that?
All three are high quality (esp. Estonia).
They are lacking in heavy equipment. None haave any tank, for example.
There are two separate categories of countries in eastern Europe: former Soviet republics and recent additions to NATO. Lithuania, Latvia, and Estonia are in both. Former warsaw Pact countries that are now in Europe (e.g. Poland, Hungary, Czechoslovakia, Romania, and Bulgaria), I believe the Russian have written off (because they are now in NATO). Lithuania, Latvia, and Estonia are in both and I do not know which characteristics predominates in the minds in the Kremlin.
A lot hangs on that question.
My big question is this - if Estonia, for example, helps Ukraine and attacks Russian troops, causing the Russians to attack Estonia, are they still defended under the NATO treaty? Much like self-defense laws, it would seem that if Estonia wades into this unprovoked they can no longer claim self defense when they are counterattacked.
Article 5 is a little more squishy and open to interpretation than most people think.
It's a great question.
Estonia (or Latvia or Lithuania) think, "If Ukraine loses, we'll have to fight the Russians here. If that's the end game anyway, we'd rather fight them on someone else's ground and get their country torn up as opposed to ours."
Putin says, "It's one thing to provide materiel and training. It's entirely another to put boots on the ground. You weren't under attack. Even though it's in another country, you've attacked me on my home turf. I'm therefore attacking you on your home turf."
Maybe Estonia / Latvia / Lithuania say, "So what? It was coming anyway. I'd rather deal with you while your diminishing resources are strung out 600 to 800 miles away. Bring it on."
Maybe they say, "Where are you, NATO?!? We're under attack, and you need to treat it as an attack on your own territory."
Then it gets really messy: Is NATO's ostensible position that, "An attack on one is an attack on all," for real? Or are members responsible if they go OMOP without prior NATO backing?
Last edited:
I do not know if "squishy" is the right word.
"An attack on one is an attack on all." The reaction, however, is not dictated.
If Russia attacks Estonian troops in Ukraine, I think most European powers would say, "Well, that's what you get when you poke the bear."
If Estonian troops in Ukraine were to prominently successful in Ukraine and Russia reacts by bombing (aerially) a supply convoy in Estonia that is headed for Ukraine (a counter force strategy), some NATO members (behind closed doors in Brussels) would say, "Game on." Others would say, "Hang on, if Estonia was not participating directly in combat, the Russians would not have done this. Russia's response was discriminate and proportionate, so let's condemn it, and talk to the Russians about how to de-escalate."
If Estonian troops in Ukraine were to be prominently successful in Ukraine and Russia reacts by invading Estonia directly, killing Estonians and destroying things wantonly (a counter value strategy), most NATO members (behind closed doors in Brussels) would say, "Game on."
This is, of course, conjecture on my part and 32 members of the North Atlantic Council (NAC) would say whatever their governments directed them to say. The discussions would be (and probably already are) tense.
Kaj Kalas, Estonian Prime Minister, explores exactly the issue of Article V for troops of NATO countries in Ukraine.
Kalas is in the camp of those who say countries that send troops assume the responsibility if Russia attacks them there.
For the record, I cannot vouch for Kanal 13. It might be based in the Kremlin or it might be legit. I just do not have time to look it up.
Kalas is in the camp of those who say countries that send troops assume the responsibility if Russia attacks them there.
Last edited:
Did some digging. Estonia is talking about sending troops to western Ukraine (away from the fighting) to help train Ukrainian troops there, not Estonia being given a sector of the front lines to fight Russia directly.
Estonia ‘seriously’ discussing sending troops to ‘rear’ jobs in Ukraine: Official
Estonia ‘seriously’ discussing sending troops to ‘rear’ jobs in Ukraine: Official
The reason for the worries in Latvia/Estonia/Lithuania is that these countries don't really have large military footprints. NATO is providing air policing. Estonia has about 4000 active duty soldiers. https://www.armyupress.army.mil/Jou...oximately four,Estonian military base of Võru.
Thus, I would not think Estonia would attack Russia - as they would be more in a defensive posture.
All three have small military establishments.
All of them have substantial quasi-military organizations (The Estonian Defense League and the Lithuanian Rifleman's Union) that will be relied upon to resist a Russian occupation to a greater or lesser degree.
One Estonian colleague said to me, somewhat pathetically, "Our fear is that, if the Russians come back, they could wipe out the Estonian people entirely." There are fewer than one million Estonian speakers in Estonia, so extermination is a possibility. They will go down swinging in my view.
@Tidewater - thank you for always willingly sharing your persepctive with us. I can't imagine anyone here has anything like the vantage point you have.
- Status
Latest threads
-
-
-
New Orleans terrorist attack 1/1/2025
- Started by Tidewater
- Replies: 12
-
-
-
Would CNS Have Done Any Better This Year than CKD with the same roster???- Started by BamaMoon
- Replies: 81