Deterrence and 'Victory'

.

 

His concept of how to defend NATO / deter Russian aggression is primitive crap. On top of that, he's an American, and who still thinks the U.S: is an ally for any country other than Israel?

Russia needs to be deterred and if that fails its leadership needs to be convinced that

• NATO won't launch nuclear first strikes, but it would retaliate to Russian nuclear first strikes
• The longer the war goes on, the worse it is for Russia(n leadership) 
• up to the point of Russian leadership facing the Mussolini retirement plan

Mussolini's retirement from politics

 

To anyone trained in math, this looks approximately like a graph (horiontal axis = time, vertical axis = how bad was is):

(quick & lazy illustration)

 

Right at beginning of hostilities, there should be strikes of "You regret to attack us!" and the aggressor's situation should rapidly deteriorate from that point until aggressor leadership pays the ultimate price itself from hands of its own people. No decapitation strikes, no attempt to eliminate nuclear second strike capability (= SSBNs in bastions are off-limits!).

That speech laid out a defence that's little deterrence because there's nothing about instant regret of decision to become aggressor. It's rather comparable to Kalkhin Gol 1939; border skirmishes / border battles are entirely thinkable in such a world and carry little more risk than embarrassment.

That's dereliction of duty, for it diminishes deterrence.

 

So the announcement how defence would happen should include that those on the ground who enter have nothing coming but thier own death or mutilation and their national leadership should expect a disaster that's rapidly expnding in case they dare to attack. Feel free to add that Russia's economy would collapse within two months of war if it dares to attack NATO. Everyone should understand that the world needs to rally to save Russians from starving the moment Russians attack NATO.

 
S O
defence_and_freedom@gmx.de
.