Input | Output |
---|---|
Link | YouTube |
Published | 2022/04/06 |
Theme | |
Status | article incomplete |
Beau says:
Beau explains his opposition to NATO involvement in a conflict, instead suggesting providing tools to Ukraine while outlining potential risks and scenarios, including a safer limited ground assault option.
International policymakers
Detailed analysis on the implications of NATO involvement and potential diplomatic strategies.
#NATO #Ukraine #ConflictResolution #InternationalRelations #Diplomacy
Well, howdy there, Internet people. It's Beau again.
So today, we're going to talk about what it would look like if NATO decided to get involved over there.
I've talked about this in other videos, and I think I've made my position on it pretty clear,
but I'm going to say it one more time. I don't think this is the right course of action.
I don't think it's the best thing for those who are caught in the middle.
I think the right course of action is to give Ukraine the tools it needs.
That being said, this is becoming an increasingly common question,
and even more so in the days since what was discovered north of the capital.
So we're going to go over it. We'll go over what I think the most likely NATO play is.
We'll go over what I think people are picturing when they ask this question.
Then we'll go over what I would prefer NATO do if they felt they had to do this.
Okay, so you're a NATO planner, right? What do you want to do?
Play to your strengths. Nobody can touch the U.S. in the sky, right?
You've heard me say that over and over again. It's not American exceptionalism.
It's a statement of fact. Nobody can touch the U.S. in the sky.
The U.S. is part of NATO. So in this case, you're not just talking about the U.S.,
you're talking about all of NATO. Nobody can touch NATO in the sky.
That seems the most likely route, and what would happen is probably the French,
because of the conversations that have occurred between heads of state,
and they would tell Russia, hey, at 4 p.m. on Thursday, we're going live,
and we're going to take the skies. And then at 4 p.m. on Thursday, NATO takes the skies.
It's a power move. It's something that NATO is capable of doing, and it is demoralizing.
On this day, at this time, we're going to do this, and there isn't anything you can do about it.
So NATO achieves air superiority pretty quickly. It's not going to take long at all.
And then from that point forward, it serves as the Ukrainian Air Force, providing air support.
So Ukrainian ground forces, they're rolling up to a city, and they get on the radio,
and they're like, hey, we just saw two tank platoons and some APCs,
and then some Air Force pilots or some naval aviators.
They come back over the radio, and they're like, wait, one? Where they at?
I don't see them. They must have disappeared. And that's what NATO would do.
That preserves the ability for Ukraine to inflict the real defeat.
It's just help from NATO in the air. It's also less risk for NATO countries,
because there's always that question, how many boots on the ground? In this case, not many.
Now, that sounds super easy. Why aren't we doing that now?
I mean, set aside the whole nuclear thing going on over there.
There's also a lot of unanswered questions.
So Ukraine starts driving the Russians back, pushing them back further and further and further.
What about those areas that were already taken? Are we driving into those too?
Does NATO get involved in that?
More importantly, what happens when a surface-to-air missile comes up that was launched from inside Russia?
Does NATO destroy that target inside of Russia?
Because if that happens, any assurances that were given in that initial phase,
this is what we're going to do, the date, the time, all that stuff.
During that conversation, there would also be, we aren't going to do X, Y, and Z.
This is going to be limited to Ukraine.
We're not an existential threat, trying to make sure that everybody's finger stays off those buttons.
But things can change.
There's a whole bunch of stuff like that that has to be worked out.
And when that happens, Russia might decide to pursue a reciprocal response.
They might decide to hit something in Poland.
They might launch a conventional attack just to show that they're not going to take it laying down.
There's a whole lot of questions here.
Now, that's the most likely option.
Most people seem to be asking about sending in US troops or NATO troops.
That seems really unlikely.
Most countries in NATO don't really have the appetite for that, except for maybe Poland.
They seem down, like they're ready to go.
But most countries wouldn't want to commit ground troops.
So if that scenario was to be played out, we're talking about a full combined arms advance,
what would that look like?
It would open the same way.
It would open with all of the air superiority stuff.
And then my guess would be a combined arms advance, a single route of advance,
probably coming out of Poland.
It hits the north end of the Russian lines and just moves south.
No advance maneuvering on this one.
No trying to catch them.
No trying to develop cauldrons.
Nothing like that, right?
Just pushing them south.
And leaving their avenue of retreat very open so they can just get out.
Because that's actually the goal.
Because the US just wants them out.
NATO just wants them out.
That would be the military objective.
And then there would still have to be those conversations.
But then you also have those questions.
What happens when Russian forces, you know, shoot across that border,
out of Russia, hit NATO forces and then go back in?
Does NATO pursue?
There's a lot of questions with this type of stuff.
Aside from that, when you're talking about ground forces and NATO,
Ukrainian troops are going to be a whole lot more careful in Ukrainian towns.
I wouldn't want, you know, armored columns rolling through the town where I live,
even if they were allied.
Because if there were opposition forces there, I mean, the battle happens.
Now, that's what the ground would look like.
And again, because there's no way Russia's going to be able to touch the US
or NATO or any combination of NATO countries in the air,
the ground campaign would move pretty quickly.
Now, what would I prefer?
They'd do the exact same thing in the startup.
You know, there's that conversation.
This is what we're going to do.
This is the time we're going to do it.
We are not going to come, in this scenario,
we're not going to come within 30 kilometers of the Russian border.
But anything that we can hit, anything that is outside of this zone
right along your border at 2 p.m. on Thursday, it's going to cease to be.
And then at 2 p.m. on Thursday, for a limited amount of time,
three or four hours, NATO just ground assault, just surface to ground,
destroys everything that they can in that short window.
And then it just stops all at once.
And then the suggestion is delivered of you can leave or we can actually deploy.
I think that's probably the safest route because it limits the possibility of something going wrong.
It limits the adaptation of tactics, surface-to-air missiles from inside Russia, stuff like that.
And in that time frame, all of NATO could turn the tide of that war.
They could do it very, very quickly.
And at that point, Ukrainian forces wouldn't need a whole lot of help.
If NATO air forces just hit every target of opportunity they could find,
in a very short period of time, with a geographic limit so they're not close to the Russian border,
that would probably be the safest for everybody involved.
I mean, except for the people in the targets of opportunity.
Because that's the real concern.
One of the real problems with using NATO against Russia with the state the Russian military is in,
it's not the worry that somehow they're going to lose to Russia.
It's more the real worry is NATO destroying the Russian military too quickly
and Russia perceiving that existential threat.
A miscalculation here is tens of millions gone.
Nothing's going to change that part.
You know, there are a lot of people who think that it can be done without that happening,
and in the right scenarios, sure.
But that's always a risk.
Direct confrontation between NATO and Russia is not a good idea in my assessment.
And if it is to happen, it needs to be quick and it needs to be well-defined and limited and not near the border.
So anyway, it's just a thought. Y'all have a good day.
{{Shirt}}
{{EasterEgg}}