Impending Invasion of Ukraine from Belarus Will Likely Force NATO to Act

And if they don't, Ukraine will likely fall. There are some 20,000 troops amassed on the border along with armor and supplies, ready to invade. And reports are some 50,000 more incoming.

Belarus was already in the war, effectively, by allowing Russian use of its airspace. However, now a new agreement between Belarus and Russia effectively commits Belarusian troops.

So now NATO stands at a precipice. Allowing those troops to attack from Belarus to the north would effectively overwhelm Ukraine's defenses, cause a war on two fronts, for which Ukraine will have limited answers.

Ukraine was barely holding on as it was, and their attack on the Crimean Bridge for all intents and purposes, failed. Traffic and train shipments have resumed. While some territory was regained, I just can't see Ukraine defending against a multi-front onslaught.

So this is a critical point in the war. And now we will find out just how serious NATO (but really mostly the US) is about protecting Ukraine.

If the US/NATO does not attack those troops immediately, they might as well back out.

Options for attacking those troops on the border would include airstrikes and/or missiles from Poland, among other things. I am of the opinion that we will see soon. Because the last time troops amassed on Ukraine's border, we know what happened.

This is really coming down to fight or flight for the US. After the attacks on infrastructure today, and particularly on the power plant, which also supplied electricity to several other countries, Russia has shown that they really don't care about civilians over and over- no matter WHAT country they are from. And that, combined with Belarus's open participation, escalates this into a regional conflict now.

a reply to: TrueAmerican
Yea i figured that when Ukraine blew up every bridge to Belarus this weekend. I only care about one of two outcomes. Zelensky is publicly hung like Sadaam, or he goes to a prison where bidders can compete in an auction for one on one time in bare knuckle action with Zelensky. I prefer the latter, but will settle for the former.

I agree NATO should get involved. But the Belarus army is small. I think they could have made a difference at the start of the war, but they can't make up for the strength Russia has lost since then.

originally posted by: Cutepants
I agree NATO should get involved. But the Belarus army is small. I think they could have made a difference at the start of the war, but they can't make up for the strength Russia has lost since then.

Nato getting more involved could likely lead to nuclear war

Have you ever been to a war zone?

Do you understand the implications not just for Ukraine but for the whole of that region and indeed the world in the event of a nuclear exchange??

I swear armchair soldiers can't see past the nose on their face sometimes

They cheer this sort of stuff on like it's their fav football team

Like the actual reality of the consequences has never crossed their doorstep

I don't want to see ANY innocent people die in Ukriane or Russia or anywhere else.

Neither do I hold any love for either putin or zelenski. A snake is a snake imho

Nato has no legal basis for attacking Belarus.

Nato is a defensive alliance.

Not going to happen.

a reply to: ManBehindTheMask

Which is exactly why this is at such a critical point. But that is jumping to extremes. A nuclear war is not necessary. But preventing Belarusian troops, combined with some other many thousands of Russian troops, from crossing that border- is necessary if Ukraine is to have any further chance.

The threat of nuclear war has always been present, not just now. For all Putin's bluster and threats, he still has not done it. But I should also point out- that neither has NATO. Operating below the nuclear threshold actually favors the west.

How do we know Ukraine hasn't already fallen? It sure seems like it was hollowed out to become a corrupt stateless playground for the NWO types. What's best for the people of Ukraine is probably to let someone get control of it to establish a democratically elected government, not the one the US installed via coup.

NATO should get involved only if a NATO country is attacked unprovoked.

As it stands thats not the case. NATO should do nothing. Particularly not for the Azov regime.

a reply to: ManBehindTheMask

We can't afford to make these decisions based on your hate for Putin or even concern for innocent people dying. They already are. I mean we can't make an emotional decision.

Even if you personally value safety over freedom, the problem is that if Putin wins this way by killing civilians then that will just encourage everyone else to do that too. Or if he wins by threatening nukes. So the solution is to push gently and make him loose in ways that avoid giving him propaganda fodder. So he has to resort to desperate acts like today. Which is bad, but better than the alternatives, total war or surrender.

a reply to: Cutepants

Lobbing nukes WOULD be a desperate act ....the Last thing you want is a mad man lashing out in desperation

Getting NATO DIRECTLY involved would be an emotional response and could absolutely trigger nuclear war

No offense ......I'm no General or master at large scale combat tactics

But I had spent the early part of my youth being shot at and bombed in combat zones so im pretty damn familiar w how pear shaped things can get and just how riky fkn tik they can get there

You say MY response is emotional

I say you wanting NATO to drop the hammer is, and it's also incredibly dangerous not just for Ukraine but for all of Europe

I'm sorry but losing Ukraine to Russia is not worth a nuclear winter for the whole world or 10s of millions dying all over the globe in fallout and nuclear firestorm

Nations have fought since time began, some win, some lose but none is worth losing half the planet because of hubris

a reply to: ManBehindTheMask

I don't get why you say getting NATO involved would be an emotional response. Wouldn't that depend on how and why they get involved? But I guess you guys are right that it's a defensive alliance. I think Russia is right when they say they're already fighting a war on NATO. I think we have an antiquated idea of what war is. But still, we could just form a coalition separate from NATO, that would be better I guess.

You say MY response is emotional

Well you were talking about how you don't love Putin and Zelensky etc.

Dropping the hammer makes it sound so dramatic though. I'm saying we should slowly apply more pressure, like boiling a frog slowly so it can't react.

a reply to: Ohanka

It's all politics to be honest. IF NATO wanted to get involved, its simple to do. Take NATO troops use them as peace keepers to move into west UKRAINE and garrison with Ukraine troops, making a no fly zone over everything in the west and central Ukraine. Put them on the border with Belarus on all sides, not just ukraine, but to the west and north. Let Belarus and Russia know that the special mission in the rest of Ukraine is over now. Any attack on NATO troops will result in defensive measures being taken. Russian and Belarus soldiers cross the border, get destroyed by NATO. This gives Ukraine men to move south to continue the fight as NATO defends the rest of Ukraine. Build up troops in the Baltics, Finland. Have Turkey put troops on the east side of the Black Sea, and put troops on standbye for crimea.

Russia will be forced to fully mobilize then and now you are looking at alot more issues at home. You think 300k people leaving to avoid the draft, imagine millions fleeing to Asia then.

Russia uses nukes, its war, russia invades through Belarus, not war, but what are they going to do when their army is destroyed, Russia has supply issues, now you have troops you have to supply through the entire border with NATO. This hurts the Ukraine offensives, Allowing Ukraine to take back more land.

If NATo and Russia went to war, you would see the Baltics/Finland be defensive, Poland pushing through Belarus, NATO pushing south through all of UKRAINE, while Turkey hits Crimea, the land route to Crimea, and anything along the Black see, while the largest army in NATO (Turkey) marches North to take everything Russia has along the Black see.

Can it happen, yes. Likely to happen no, and here is the reason, politics. Wars are not fought by soldiers. they are fought by propaganda and politicians. Soldiers as just cannon folder. In this scenario, Russia has too much to lose, hence NATO would be backing them in a corner. Can't do that politics. So what will NATO do then.

Arm/train more ukrainians, more sanctions. Thats about it. Give Ukraine the means to hit soldiers MRS will do good work on the invaders from Belarus. Then Ukraine also has justification to move north into Belarus since they attacked and take land. Moving along the south and west taking land creating a pocket around minsk.

If they take Gomel, everything in the south, west and along the Lithuanian border, That makes NATO stronger. They can hold a referendum to see if the folks want to be free, and join either Ukraine, Lithuania, Poland, or all three. Just like Russia did.

I don't see Russia/Belarus invading from the North, doing so is bad, as all of Ukraines reserves can counter it, they want to counter it, and they have a reason to be pissed. Give them an excuse to cross the border and they will no issues. Eastern Europe folks have long memories and they aren't happy with belarus at all.

Camain

a reply to: ManBehindTheMask

Exactly and regular people are sick of the violence and threats. Nato is nothing but a group or political trouble makers

Disband nato and USA needs to butt out, concentrate on issues at home

a reply to: Salamandy


Did NATO go on a land grabbing invasion?

That was russia.

a reply to: MidnightWatcher

No and neither did Russia according to many
Nato sucks, disband them

It was all of em..
And we the people...people of the land ..we the people of no affiliation in war with any side..be it Ukraine or russia..china or america...east or west..not black and white nor any colors in-between..
Just the people..we the people who just want to live their own life
.... need to and must unite outside of these political groups and agendas and take away their power...


Ha....ha..yeah..i know..pipedream...never gonna happen...oh well..nice thought at least if only for a second of enjoyment...beterr then none at all ..
Which is all these mothafxxerz have to give us...
I say...and mean this with all my being....

,GET a ROPE ,

a reply to: MidnightWatcher

a reply to: Salamandy

Nice try, but "many" ain't a source of ANY kind.

NATO sucks for you, why? 'Cause there a MILLIONS of people in NATO who don't agree with you.

Cheers

a reply to: MidnightWatcher
I will ask again since you ignored me in the other thread. When in the 21st century was an invasion by one state on another sovereign a pre requisite to invasion by one of the permanent members of the Security council?? Who did Iraq, or Syria, or Libya invade before their nations were turned to rubble in the 21st century by members of NATO?

originally posted by: worldstarcountry
a reply to: MidnightWatcher
I will ask again since you ignored me in the other thread. When in the 21st century was an invasion by one state on another sovereign a pre requisite to invasion by one of the permanent members of the Security council?? Who did Iraq, or Syria, or Libya invade before their nations were turned to rubble in the 21st century by members of NATO?

Unless I am totally losing it, I believe Iraq invaded Kuwait. Oh wait... yes ,they did. In this case, Russia invaded Ukraine. Wasn't enough. So instead of Putin just cutting his losses and retreating, he's doubling down and dragging in Belarus. I think it's fair at this point that Ukraine drag someone else in too then. For example, Poland. If Belarus invades Ukraine, then Poland invades Belarus. This has got to stop somewhere. And Poland arguably has more of a national security interest in ultimately stopping Russia's invasions than just about anyone else. Cause they may well be next.

a reply to: F2d5thCavv2

i could link to articles all day and you know that

nato, as i have stated, is a trouble maker and does nothing but provoke violence. show me a source where they havent butted in a stoked unnecessary flames? or do you just buy into the hate for msm's latest boogie man?