Încercăm o variantă nouă

Eu am citit un alt punct de vedere (e in engleza), mi se pare trist, dar pare destul de “actual”, daca-mi e permisa exprimarea. Zice asa:

It’s possible the plan is to install a puppet government, federalize Ukraine (maybe even letting it keep DNR/LNR, albeit de facto independent), and keep major Russian military bases there. Moldova might be annexed or at least forced to give up on Transnistria. However, what most people are forgetting about is that Russia might test NATO in the Baltics. The Russian military has proven that it can take enormous territories in less than a day. Ukraine is a massive country, with one of the largest and most powerful land militaries in Europe. If the Russians were able to do that in Ukraine, with its 44 million people and big cities such as Kharkov and Kiev, imagine what it could do to Estonia or Latvia. They’d fall in matter of days, maybe even hours, before NATO could react. Then, the US and NATO would be in a terrible position. Enforce Article 5 and start a thermonuclear war which would turn the planet into a radioactive glass wasteland for the next 100,000 years… OR… Do nothing in terms of military action and effectively make NATO dissolve, since Article 5 just became toilet paper. This is actually outlined in the new Russian military doctrine (colloquially known as the “Gerasimov Doctrine”). This specific strategy is called “escalate to deescalate”, basically meaning the Russians would use low-yield tactical nuclear strikes in order to destroy military installation, while sparing the cities. This would force NATO to choose. Escalate and destroy the world or deescalate and stop right there. Both Russia and the US conducted war games to test this theory. More specifically, the Pentagon-based RAND Corporation did. In both scenarios, countries mostly preferred to deescalate the situation, which is good. However, the Baltic states were lost to Russia. That’s the real danger globally, IMO. Because an actual situation doesn’t need to end with de-escalation.

Suna trist rau de tot, repet, poate nu va fi chiar asa, dar nu-l vad pe criminal oprindu-se…e clar ca e capabil de orice nenorocire.

Altfel, respect Seniorului si multumiri pentru tot ce face aici 🙂

@Duhul – am citit art. 5 din Tratatul NATO si art. 51 din Carta ONU (la care art. 5 face referire). Nu scrie nimic de atac nuclear, scrie de orice tip de atac, e decizia aliatilor cum sa riposteze la atacul inamic (NATO nu ataca, NATO raspunde unui eventual atac inamic). Ce scrie omul asta e despre posibilitatea ca NATO sa ignore pur si simplu art. 5, conform teoriei expuse.
Sper sa fie doar o teorie, sa nu se ajunga naibii la niciuna din variante, pentru ca vom fi terminati cu totii.