‘Risk of conflict is real’ – NATO chief

[Battlion25]

The diversion tactics didn't work out because they were banking on CSTO to instead get pre-occupied with the east hence they were behind the protesters and how did they achieve that on the eve of the talks there is alot of conspiracies regarding it but the whole thing just fizzled out and stablized in Kazakhstan they gambled on the wrong entity because the president overacted and things is now fully under-control in Kazakhstan within just 48 hours and the 6 CSTO countries just deployed 4000 peacekeepers who will return home likely in the coming weeks without even doing anything because everything just settled and there big gamble was a protracted conflict but it just never happened and never was on the card but after that didn't work out now NATO realizes that the possibility of conflict on in eastern european is becoming more of a reality because Russia now knows the diverting tactics was pre-planned to force them concede in the deal to NATO's requirements..

‘Risk of conflict is real’ – NATO chief
Stoltenberg says US-led organisation ready to negotiate with Russia, doesn't want war

NATO is open to listening to Moscow’s concerns, the bloc’s head Jens Stoltenberg said on Friday. However, he added that any moves to reduce tensions over Ukraine must be reciprocal, and not undermine the European “security order.”

The Secretary-General explained his organisation's approach to negotiations with Moscow during a press conference, following an extraordinary meeting of the member states’ foreign ministers.

Stoltenberg squarely blamed the deteriorating relations and tensions around Ukraine on the Russian side, reiterating the claims of a “military build-up” allegedly conducted by Moscow on its neighbor’s borders. The allegations have been consistently dismissed by the Kremlin, which insists any movement of troops within its own territory is strictly its domestic business.

“The risk of conflict is real. Russia’s aggressive actions seriously undermine the security order in Europe,” Stoltenberg insisted on Friday.

At the same time, the official signaled that NATO was not eager to enter a war with Russia over Ukraine. While the West has repeatedly warned Russia over severe “consequences” should it “invade” its neighbor – a charge repeatedly denied by Moscow – Ukraine is not a NATO member and an attack on it does not invoke the bloc’s collective defense, Stoltenberg reminded the journalists at the press conference.


The bloc is ready to engage with Russia on outstanding security issues, but Moscow should not expect any one-sided concessions, Stoltenberg warned. He also expressed confidence that the US won't make any concessions to Russia at the expense of its European allies.

“We are ready to engage in arms control with Russia, conventional and nuclear, but that has to be reciprocal,” Stoltenberg stated. “That’s a different thing – imposing one-sided restrictions ... we can’t end up in a situation where we have second-class NATO members where NATO as an alliance is not allowed to protect them.”

Top diplomats from NATO states got together for an online summit ahead of the upcoming US-Russia talks, as well as the first meeting of the NATO-Russia Council in years. The US-Russia talks, set to be led by high-level officials of the two nations, are scheduled to begin in Geneva on January 10. A NATO-Russia Council meeting, set to be the first since 2019, is expected to take place on January 12.

‘Risk of conflict is real’ – NATO chief

NATO is open to listening to Moscow’s concerns, the bloc’s head Jens Stoltenberg said on Friday. However, he added that any moves to reduce tensions over Ukraine must be reciprocal, and not undermine the European “security order.”

www.rt.com

 

[Beny Karachun]

Russia has no chance in a conventional war against NATO.

 

[Battlion25]

Russia has no chance in a conventional war against NATO.

I don't think they want conventional war or anything but if miscalculations occur along the way they wanna bank on China's help which will balance things bearing whole of Asia and others stay neutral

 

[Battlion25]

8 Jan, 2022 17:32
NATO ‘never promised’ not to expand, US claims
A host of long-declassified documents, however, show Moscow was promised bloc wouldn’t admit more states

“NATO never promised not to admit new members,” the top American diplomat told journalists during Friday’s press briefing, as he commented on Moscow’s proposals to the bloc on security guarantees, ahead of upcoming NATO-Russia meetings next week.

“It could not and would not – the ‘open door policy’ was a core provision of the 1949 North Atlantic Treaty that founded NATO,” Blinken added. He then pointed to the fact that both Mikhail Gorbachev – the Soviet leader who’d allegedly received the guarantees of non-expansion from the Western leaders – and the former US Secretary of State James Baker, who allegedly provided them, among others – denied anything like that ever happened.

“There was no promise that NATO wouldn’t expand,” Blinken concluded, adding that, instead, Moscow had itself recognized every European nation’s right to choose its own path in the field of security by joining the Istanbul Charter for European Security in 1999.

NATO ‘never promised’ not to expand, US claims

NATO has never promised not to admit new members, US Secretary of State Antony Blinken claimed on Friday, labelling Russia’s demands of the bloc inadmissible. However, long-declassified Western documents suggest otherwise.

www.rt.com

 

[Beny Karachun]

I don't think they want conventional war or anything but if miscalculations occur along the way they wanna bank on China's help which will balance things bearing whole of Asia and others stay neutral

Well it's either they stay in their place, start a conventional war or end the whole world.

In the European theater China won't balance anything. China doesn't have the capabilities to project power big enough to threaten NATO that far away, especially since Gibraltar, English Channel and Suez would be blocked by NATO.

It might cause the US into splitting its forces, but the US has many powerful allies in Asia like Japan and South Korea, China would have a lot to deal with and would be busy defending itself rather than defending Russia.

 

[Battlion25]

Well it's either they stay in their place, start a conventional war or end the whole world.

In the European theater China won't balance anything. China doesn't have the capabilities to project power big enough to threaten NATO that far away, especially since Gibraltar, English Channel and Suez would be blocked by NATO.

It might cause the US into splitting its forces, but the US has many powerful allies in Asia like Japan and South Korea, China would have a lot to deal with and would be busy defending itself rather than defending Russia.

Suez Canal can't be closed other then by Egypt but who said anything about the ocean tho China could technically deploy 50 divisions by land to East Europe they have easy land-connection.. I agree with you that China will get pre-occupied with other elements such as the Gangus and Japan dont think SK will get involved they wanna stand-down... Gangus won't move blocked by Pakistan leaving only Japan who is 50/50 could stand-down

 

[Beny Karachun]

Suez Canal can't be closed other then by Egypt but who said anything about the ocean tho China could technically deploy 50 divisions by land to East Europe they have easy land-connection.. I agree with you that China will get pre-occupied with other elements such as the Gangus and Japan dont think SK will get involved they wanna stand-down... Gangus won't move blocked by Pakistan leaving only Japan who is 50/50 could stand-down

Trust me, the Suez will be closed down whether Egypt wants it or not. It's a narrow pass.

China won't be able to send anything meaningful to the European front in time. It will take over a month to bring in mechanized and armored divisions and it would be a logistical nightmare to maintain them. And as I said, China won't be in a position to spare 50 divisions.

Japan and South Korea would be in on it because US bases are present there. Also Australia and New Zealand would join in.

 

[Battlion25]

Trust me, the Suez will be closed down whether Egypt wants it or not. It's a narrow pass.

China won't be able to send anything meaningful to the European front in time. It will take over a month to bring in mechanized and armored divisions and it would be a logistical nightmare to maintain them. And as I said, China won't be in a position to spare 50 divisions.

Japan and South Korea would be in on it because US bases are present there. Also Australia and New Zealand would join in.

If Egypt refuses there is no closing that unless they wanna open another front which is highly unlikely choice at that certain point. All tho Egypt is an ally but there is nothing they could do about it at that friction point if they were to refuse to close because it is a trade passage way.

SK will stand-down I am confident of this much.. Unsure about Japan however but they could technically deploy 100 division even if they wanted within a week? What are you smoking a month? there are smooth roads and railways from China to East Europe.. Hence ocean won't even be necessary..

In my honest opinion the balance of power has slowly tipped they could fight in Europe and win and you gotta ask yourself whos gonna do the heavy work in Europe you got alot of fiefdoms except only Germany, France, Britain and Italy? What do you think they can fight 100s divisions of Chinese????

Plus Russia and other CSTO states including North Korea could deploy further 200 divisions.. The Germans and franch will melt infront of that force they can't stand infront of that menace and this will look nothing like WW2 because every war is different entirely and things never happen in the same sequences.

''Every fight is a different fight''

Sun Tzu

 

[Titanium100]

Russia has no chance in a conventional war against NATO.

With China's backing they could technically win a conflict in Europe and probably be the oddsmakers favors to do it

 

[Beny Karachun]

If Egypt refuses there is no closing that unless they wanna open another front which is highly unlikely choice at that certain point. All tho Egypt is an ally but there is nothing they could do about it at that friction point if they were to refuse to close because it is a trade passage way.

It would be closed and pretty much not relevant because even if it isn't it's easy to pick off Chinese ships in the Suez.

SK will stand-down I am confident of this much.. Unsure about Japan however but they could technically deploy 100 division even if they wanted within a week? What are you smoking a month? there are smooth roads and railways from China to East Europe.. Hence ocean won't even be necessary..

100 divisions? That's around 2 million soldiers. That's the whole Chinese army, China can't throw around numbers like that. You might think that China's massive population pool could allow it to but the story is very different, armies are extremely expensive to train and maintain, China would be out of money or would have to compromise on equipment and training time.

It takes a train a week to get from Vladivostok to Moscow. It would take more time for armored and mechanized divisions, fastest way for that to happen is using transport trucks, and their speed would be limited due to weight and poor roads and any technical difficulties they may have. Believe me when I say this, Russian roads are bad right outside of Moscow, let alone Siberia.
Maybe one month is far fetched, but traveling that distance is no easy task even without an entire division of tanks and all of their supplies.

Also, even a week might be too long. Modern wars are swift due to the lethality of todays weapons.

In my honest opinion the balance of power has slowly tipped they could fight in Europe and win and you gotta ask yourself whos gonna do the heavy work in Europe you got alot of fiefdoms except only Germany, France, Britain and Italy? What do you think they can fight 100s divisions of Chinese????

As I said, China doesn't have hundreds of divisions. China has 75 divisions today.
NATO has 2.5 million active duty personnel and 2.7 million reserves. Such a war wouldn't be confined to just NATO.
NATO and its allies would have 6.3 million soldiers.

Plus Russia and other CSTO states including North Korea could deploy further 200 divisions.. The Germans and franch will melt infront of that force they can't stand infront of that menace and this will look nothing like WW2 because every war is different entirely and things never happen in the same sequences.

CSTO states are a joke. North Korean military is also a joke, full of unfed soldiers. The only danger it imposes is their nuclear weapons and massive although crude artillery force.

They won't win against Europe. Average age of equipment from said countries is 20 years older than average NATO weapons.

There are a few reasons why NATO would likely have the advantage in a fight. Firstly, NATO has a much larger military than Russia, with a significantly larger number of troops, tanks, and other weapons. In addition, many of NATO's member countries are more technologically advanced than Russia, meaning they would be better equipped to fight a modern war. Finally, NATO has a much more developed infrastructure and logistics network, which would allow it to deploy troops and supplies more efficiently than Russia.

 

[MH.Yang]

The Chinese army has no division level establishment, only group armies and brigades. We have 13 army groups. Each group army usually governs 12 brigades.

 

[Battlion25]

100 divisions? That's around 2 million soldiers. That's the whole Chinese army, China can't throw around numbers like that. You might think that China's massive population pool could allow it to but the story is very different, armies are extremely expensive to train and maintain, China would be out of money or would have to compromise on equipment and training time.

It takes a train a week to get from Vladivostok to Moscow. It would take more time for armored and mechanized divisions, fastest way for that to happen is using transport trucks, and their speed would be limited due to weight and poor roads and any technical difficulties they may have. Believe me when I say this, Russian roads are bad right outside of Moscow, let alone Siberia.
Maybe one month is far fetched, but traveling that distance is no easy task even without an entire division of tanks and all of their supplies.

Also, even a week might be too long. Modern wars are swift due to the lethality of todays weapons.


As I said, China doesn't have hundreds of divisions. China has 75 divisions today.
NATO has 2.5 million active duty personnel and 2.7 million reserves. Such a war wouldn't be confined to just NATO.
NATO and its allies would have 6.3 million soldiers.



CSTO states are a joke. North Korean military is also a joke, full of unfed soldiers. The only danger it imposes is their nuclear weapons and massive although crude artillery force.

They won't win against Europe. Average age of equipment from said countries is 20 years older than average NATO weapons.

There are a few reasons why NATO would likely have the advantage in a fight. Firstly, NATO has a much larger military than Russia, with a significantly larger number of troops, tanks, and other weapons. In addition, many of NATO's member countries are more technologically advanced than Russia, meaning they would be better equipped to fight a modern war. Finally, NATO has a much more developed infrastructure and logistics network, which would allow it to deploy troops and supplies more efficiently than Russia.

There is railway and the roads are okay enough for them to arrive to the eastern european theater within a weeks time.

Besides there is alot of things you don't know about china? Example it is true that China has 2.1m active duty personale within the army but these are only the tip of the iceberg you see China has 8.000.000 forces called basically ''Militia'' and don't get fooled by the name these are fully trained and Mechanized forces. They have industrial production capacity meaning they have AVs and tanks ready for them.

Hence China throwing 2 million men in is nothing out of ordinary they could do that without even sending their regular armed forces just the ''Militia'' and they could do that without second thoughts and expandables..

China has been war ready for some time now but they are just obsessed with over-preparing. But China could take people by surprise and come out of the gate faster then the Mongol empire and just swarm the entire world. Must people don't pay that much attention or analyse them.. They are cohesive bunch, extremely prepared and very dangerous

 

[thetutle]

In my honest opinion the balance of power has slowly tipped they could fight in Europe and win and you gotta ask yourself whos gonna do the heavy work in Europe you got alot of fiefdoms except only Germany, France, Britain and Italy? What do you think they can fight 100s divisions of Chinese????

Plus Russia and other CSTO states including North Korea could deploy further 200 divisions.. The Germans and franch will melt infront of that force they can't stand infront of that menace and this will look nothing like WW2 because every war is different entirely and things never happen in the same sequences.

Thats just laughable. NATO would destroy any attacking army with such speed and efficiency, you would find it scary. Unfortunately, NATO resistance will not kick in until Russians get to Germany. Unfortunately NATO does not care that much about Ukraine or even Poland.

Ukraine is now very well armed and its doubtful Russia will be able to take more than half of Ukraine. And even then it will suffer a massive cost.

 

[serenity]

There is no way China would get involved in military conflict in European theatre even if China has 10 times the military size it has today. It is counter to its strategic thinking and mode of operations. China wants as much to maintain good relations with Russia as it wishes to create better working relations with Europe.

Those kinds of conflicts are entirely Russian and European to work out within itself. China's even contributing words to such internal conflicts would only be a destabilizing force with no purpose for the conflict resolution or for China's interests. China didn't even involve itself with middle eastern conflicts even when interests are directly threatened or even harmed for example with Lebanon's instability now.

 

[thetutle]

Suez Canal can't be closed other then by Egypt but who said anything about the ocean tho China could technically deploy 50 divisions by land to East Europe they have easy land-connection

Suez can easily be closed in many ways. Easiest way is to:

1) ask the eyptian dictator to close it.
2) Change the dictator running Egypt.
3) bomb it
4) ask Israel to take over.

Russia would never let any Chinese division roll across Russia.