Input | Output |
---|---|
Link | YouTube |
Published | 2022/03/19 |
Theme | |
Status | article incomplete |
Beau says:
Exploring the risks and variables of providing higher tier equipment to Ukraine without triggering direct confrontation with Russia, amid concerns about misinterpretation leading to a nuclear exchange.
Policy analysts, decision-makers
Analysis of the potential consequences of various scenarios beyond direct confrontation with Russia, best understood through watching the full transcript.
#Ukraine #NATO #Russia #ConflictResolution #InternationalRelations
Well, howdy there, internet people.
It's Beau again.
So today, we're going to talk about higher tier stuff being
delivered to Ukraine, that idea, and variables, and the
growing idea that NATO has to get involved directly.
And then we're going to go through some of the wild card
stuff, because there's a lot of questions coming in, because
You have a lot of people on TV at this point saying, hey, you know, we need to give them
the good equipment.
And there's a lot of people who are pointing out that we can do that without causing a
nuclear exchange.
And yeah, that's true.
That is, supplying higher grade equipment is not going to trigger a nuclear exchange.
That's not a thing.
So they're correct in that.
But then you have to wonder why the administration isn't doing it.
Because they certainly have their own advisors telling them that this is a possibility.
And they have pressure on them from the community at large because of the moral outrage of what's
happening there.
So they want NATO to step in quickly, right?
And then you have the other thing, you have the arms manufacturers who stand to make a
fortune if the U.S. starts providing them with high-grade equipment.
And if you don't know, right now Ukraine is doing what it's doing to the Russian military
with low and mid-grade stuff.
They don't have the high-tech toys yet.
They are doing this with low to mid-tier stuff, for the most part.
The idea is give them the higher grade equipment and it turns the tide, and yeah, that's probably
true.
That is probably true, but that runs the risk of direct NATO confrontation with Russia because
There's a whole bunch of variables from that point.
OK, so we decide we're going to give them this higher grade stuff.
They don't know how to use it.
So are we pulling people out of Ukraine to train the trainer?
Or are we sending Americans in to train?
During the transport phase, what happens if Russia shoots down a jet?
What happens if Russia shoots down a NATO plane that's
transporting this stuff?
Are we all in?
Or what happens when Ukraine does turn the tide
and Russia realizes it's because of the higher grade equipment
and they want to cut off that supply
and they hit an airfield in Poland?
That direct confrontation between NATO and Russia
is what people are trying to avoid, most people,
a lot of people.
So let's say one of those things happens and NATO goes all in, then you have a whole new
set of variables.
Where do they stop?
I mean NATO can push Russia out of Ukraine in like a week.
Based on what we've seen, yeah, a week.
But then what happens when they get to the border?
Do they stop?
End up with a demilitarized zone?
Do they move into Russian territory?
Do they attempt regime change?
Do they become that threat to actual control that might trigger something really bad happening?
What happens to Belarus?
Does NATO just conquer it?
What about the contested areas from the beginning?
Do they go into those?
There's this giant list of variables that would have to be worked out.
And at any point in time during this process, both sides can make a mistake at the same
time.
That is what can trigger a nuclear exchange.
Misreading something.
That's the worry.
So it seems as though the Biden administration is in a position, and NATO as a whole is currently
in the position of when the outlier is hundreds of millions gone, we're going to
to stick with something that has a proven track record, which is no direct confrontation.
That's probably why they're not doing it at this point.
Now if they work out the logistics of getting this stuff in without risking direct NATO
confrontation, all that math changes, but right now it seems like NATO would have to
put NATO forces at risk to give them the higher grade stuff.
And that's what a lot of this has to do with, that risk of direct confrontation.
Now there's a whole other can of worms.
And that's that a lot of analysts, now I want to be clear, I actually haven't seen this.
I haven't heard anything directly suggesting this.
But a lot of analysts who know what they're talking about are kind of indicating that
there are some Eastern European nations who are part of NATO who are at the point where
they're ready to go it alone to help Ukraine.
That's a whole new thing.
If that happens, then yeah, the safest course of action probably is NATO involvement, direct
NATO involvement.
With the larger force, it's less likely that Russia responds in an unthinkable manner.
But if it's just, say it's just Poland, and they're operating without NATO, maybe Russia
reads that as NATO isn't going to respond to defend them.
And there's that spiral thing.
So if one of the countries decides to go it alone, the rest of NATO should probably go
in in the interest of reducing that risk of that outlier outcome.
At this point, when it comes to that direct confrontation between NATO and Russia, there
are people who are basically just saying, call their bluff.
And I get it because logically, Putin's not going to watch.
At the same time, my concern has never been a leader doing it intentionally.
My concern has been two mistakes at the same time, things being misread.
That's been my concern.
risk heightens with direct NATO involvement and it goes up a lot.
So when it comes to the higher tier equipment, which is really what's prompting this, first
understand there are really good analysts who are saying to do this.
There's also a lot of people who might stand to benefit from this because those weapons
going over means that those weapons need to be replaced.
Would it help?
Would it help turn the tide?
Yeah.
There's quite a few systems that would make a huge difference, but most of them are technologically
advanced.
And you round right back around to that problem of having to train them and having to supply
stuff that they don't have and logistics that they don't have at the time at this moment.
So the answer to this is, can we give them the higher grade stuff without causing a nuclear
war?
Yeah.
But it sets the conditions to get closer to it.
And I think that's why the administration is staying off.
That's why they're not exercising this option, because I'm sure they're being advised to
do it, from the more aggressive advisors to the arms manufacturers to the public themselves.
That's probably why they're being leery though.
Anyway, it's just a thought, y'all have a good day.
{{Shirt}}
{{EasterEgg}}