Ante el punto muerto que ha alcanzado la ayuda de Occidente a Ucrania, los aliados europeos empiezan a deliberar qué van a hacer si el plan derrotar a Rusia no funciona. Expertos citan a personas cercanas a las conversaciones internas que auguran el impacto de tal revés estratégico para el prestigio de la OTAN sería “mucho más profundo” que el causado por el “espectáculo de la fallida retirada de EE.UU. de Afganistán” en 2021. Algunos gobiernos están evaluando los riesgos que podrían correr los miembros orientales de la Alianza Atlántica en caso de que Ucrania ya no pueda oponer resistencia a las fuerzas rusas y sus defensas se desmoronen. En esta línea, ya se está cuestionando la fiabilidad de las promesas de defensa hechas por Washington. Funcionarios europeos afirmaron que Moscú buscaría tomar bajo su control más territorios y “destruir más infraestructura si Ucrania no recibe las armas de Occidente para defenderse”. En este caso, Kiev tendría que aceptar un acuerdo de alto el fuego bajo las condiciones de Moscú.
Mientras permanecen bloqueados por diferencias políticas 61.000 millones de dólares en EE.UU. y 50.000 millones euros en la UE, y los partidarios de Ucrania esperan decisiones a principios del próximo año, los funcionarios reconocen que es improbable que se produzca un gran avance ucraniano en el campo de batalla. Algunos funcionarios en los países bálticos ya están hablando de preparativos para una nueva guerra, dado que las tropas rusas “no serán derrotadas en Ucrania”, y crecen sus preocupaciones acerca de si EE.UU. y otros aliados arriesgarían sus tropas para defender a las pequeñas naciones que fueron parte de la URSS.
Así, Martin Herem, jefe de las Fuerzas de Defensa de Estonia, afirmó en declaraciones a un canal local la semana pasada que las fuerzas rusas podrían estar listas para atacar a la OTAN dentro de un año al terminar el conflicto en Ucrania. “Rusia no tiene miedo a la OTAN”, aseguró el jefe militar.
La agencia destaca que en Occidente ha desaparecido la confianza en que la operación militar especial lanzada por Moscú fuera una “derrota estratégica” para el líder ruso. En su lugar, hay quienes sugieren una “creciente sensación de que la apuesta del presidente ruso, Vladímir Putin, de que puede durar más que EE.UU. y sus aliados podría resultar acertada”.
El triunfo ruso en el conflicto ucraniano desencadenaría un flujo de refugiados hacia la UE, aumentando la presión sobre ciertos servicios en los países afectados y agravando las tensiones entre los miembros, indicó un funcionario occidental. Asimismo, la posible transición ucraniana a las tácticas de guerrilla perpetuaría la instabilidad en la frontera este de la UE.
Al mismo tiempo el acercamiento de Rusia a los países de Europa central y su dominación en el mar Negro gracias a la posición de Crimea obligarían a EE.UU. a emprender inversiones significativas en las fuerzas europeas para conseguir una disuasión fiable. Esto requeriría un considerable despliegue de fuerzas terrestres y de aeronaves.
PutinBiden
Dadas las limitaciones de la industria militar estadounidense, es muy probable que la Casa Blanca se enfrente a una elección entre mantener suficientes fuerzas en Asia frente a un potencial ataque chino contra Taiwán o disuadir un potencial ataque ruso a la OTAN, argumenta el Instituto para el Estudio de la Guerra en un reciente informe.
“Toda esa empresa costaría una fortuna”, y “el coste durará mientras persista la amenaza rusa, potencialmente de forma indefinida”, opinó el historiador militar Frederick Kagan, uno de los analistas citados en el informe.
El ministro de Exteriores británico, David Cameron, afirmó el martes que su país y Francia seguirán apoyando a Ucrania tanto tiempo como sea necesaria hasta que Rusia sea derrotada.
Al respecto, Dmitri Peskov, portavoz del presidente ruso, comentó que tal postura conllevará a un mayor agotamiento de los recursos y a una mayor implicación de estos países en el conflicto ucraniano. “Conocemos bien esta posición, no puede cambiar el curso de los acontecimientos”, subrayó el vocero del Kremlin.
Por su parte, Putin calificó recientemente de “una completa tontería” la afirmación de su homólogo estadounidense, Joe Biden, de que Moscú podría atacar a un país de la OTAN. “Creo que el presidente Biden lo entiende, esto es solo una figura retórica para justificar su política errónea entorno a Rusia”, señaló el mandatario.
“Rusia no tiene ninguna razón, ningún interés, ni geopolítico, ni económico, ni político, ni militar, para luchar contra los países de la OTAN. No tenemos reclamaciones territoriales entre nosotros y no tenemos ningún deseo de estropear las relaciones con ellos”, explicó.
[wpdiscuz-feedback id=”z7d2czhbwm” question=”¿Qué opina usted de esta situación?” opened=”0″]
My last pay test was $9,500 operating 12 hours per week online. My buddy has been averaging 15,000 for months now and she works approximately 20 hours every week. I can not accept as true with how easy it become as soon as I tried it out.
Let’s break this: should Russia win the war against Ukraine; it would massively impact the world’s economy. Not only that, but it would also be a steppingstone to reforming the Soviet Union. The victory over Ukraine would cement Russia’s place as a force to be reckoned with even though they really aren’t. Ukraine is an incredibly important country to our daily lives than we thought. Under Russia, our daily lives would change and with China’s attempt to retake Taiwan, this could spell the beginning for WW3, which is something we do not want. With this in mind, NATO is deciding whether it is worth risking a third world war to save Ukraine and Taiwan. A third world war could be more dangerous than the past two with the presence of modern weaponry, armour and equipment. And not to forget, THE NUKES! The stakes are too high, and NATO may consider not assisting Ukraine in order to prevent a third world war. While, I think this makes sense, it is also a HUGE risk as the reformation of the Soviet Union could mean that the economy would be in a really bad state and alliances like NATO, or the EU may lose a lot of their military might. It would take another few decades for the Soviet Union to once again collapse. This is also why the US is considering leaving NATO as it is so important in keeping the world together. This means that the US can set its own parameters for Russia and help prevent another major invasion. This is helped without the burden of NATO’s set parameters. Conclusion: Russia will reform the Soviet Union and cause WW3 with the help of China and, dare I say it, the US.
The previous administrations criticism of NATO wasn’t for the necessity or efficacy of NATO. It was a protest of how much the US invests into NATO and how seriously its interests are taken. Many nations see the US as the big stick in the world and have reduced their military spending accordingly. Unfortunately, much of that spending decrease also means not paying the expected 2% GDP agreed to as part of their NATO membership. Prior to Finland/Sweden entry, only five nations were paying 2%+. The other 25 simply weren’t. Nations that were arguably acting against US interests, such as Turkey, are among those who aren’t paying. It’s easy to look at the top level and bemoan that the US doesn’t support NATO. And that being the case, it’s easy to panic about the US leaving NATO. The possibility of that happening, even under a Trump administration, is minute. The access that NATO membership provides to member nations and the idea of “Fighting the enemy over there” are simply too great to dismiss. What’s not supported is the notion that the US is obligated to fight for other nations who do “Pay their fair share”. They get US protection at rock bottom prices.
I Doubt this scenario would ever end in a proper victory for Putin, at least without triggering what would more than likely have immense potential to end up as a world-ending nuclear war
This war vastly diminished Russian economy and military capabiliity. A realistic Russian vistory would come at a cost of their world power status most likely.
Russia’s army is actually much smaller than estimated. They only sent 200k troops to ukraine, so if they’re relying on mobilization rather than the 1.2 million extra troops that they should have, then that means their army is much smaller than first estimated.
The Brits did not like the European Union, but we love Europe. The last six or so years have certainly been a rollercoaster (biggest understatement ever) and I think the UK was struggling to find its position in the world, but this war has woken us up. To use a Scouse phrase, the war has made us “give our heads a wobble”. The Anglosphere (UK, Canada, and US), the Baltics, and Poland are the strongest supporters for Ukraine. EU or no EU, we still will defend our shared values of democracy.
Russia has already lost the war, his goal of curbing NATO expansion has backfired and and lead to Finland and Sweden Joining the alliance and all other members realizing they need to bolster their forces. so even if Russia pulls off an a miracle and wins the battle of Ukraine (which they won’t). It’ll be a Pyrrhic Victory, as he’s strengthened NATO and suffered such staggering military, human and economic losses it’ll take the Russian’s 50+ years to bounce back militarily, economically and humanly.
The problem is that if Russia does defeat Ukraine and then decides to turn to Moldova, Romania would likely step in. Romania would almost certainly refuse to give up the large ethnic Romanian population in Moldova to Moscow a 2nd time when the majority of Romanians seem to support some sort of integration of Moldova into Romania.
Russia would likely start by annexing Transnistria, not all of Moldova. Depending on how that went they could say that other parts of the country “also have large Russian populations that are being oppressed” and try to take even more ground.
I doubt that Romania will fight with Russia for Moldova. I mean, isn’t Romania one of the EU countries along with Hungary who is still buying Russian gas and oil?
There are some very unreasonable assumptions being made here. First, there only seems to be one version of a Russian victory; total annexation of Ukraine. It is still possible that Russia could “Win” while only annexing its current occupied territories, with a smaller Ukrainian state still existing. Either way, the Russian flag flying over Kiev or Mariupol would not be the end of Russias trouble in Ukraine. It would then turn into a protracted insurgency.
The only reason the US had shaky relations with NATO is because most of the other countries weren’t carrying their weight. We were just trying to hold everyone accountable
Trump talked about reducing the support for NATO because many members were not contributing the necessary amount to their own militaries. With the war, a lot of europeans countries have upped their military spending so even if Trump was still in office, the US would still very much support NATO.
♦
Mientras permanecen bloqueados por diferencias políticas 61.000 millones de dólares en EE.UU. y 50.000 millones euros en la UE, y los partidarios de Ucrania esperan decisiones a principios del próximo año, los funcionarios reconocen que es improbable que se produzca un gran avance ucraniano en el campo de batalla. Algunos funcionarios en los países bálticos ya están hablando de preparativos para una nueva guerra, dado que las tropas rusas “no serán derrotadas en Ucrania”, y crecen sus preocupaciones acerca de si EE.UU. y otros aliados arriesgarían sus tropas para defender a las pequeñas naciones que fueron parte de la URSS.
Así, Martin Herem, jefe de las Fuerzas de Defensa de Estonia, afirmó en declaraciones a un canal local la semana pasada que las fuerzas rusas podrían estar listas para atacar a la OTAN dentro de un año al terminar el conflicto en Ucrania. “Rusia no tiene miedo a la OTAN”, aseguró el jefe militar.
La agencia destaca que en Occidente ha desaparecido la confianza en que la operación militar especial lanzada por Moscú fuera una “derrota estratégica” para el líder ruso. En su lugar, hay quienes sugieren una “creciente sensación de que la apuesta del presidente ruso, Vladímir Putin, de que puede durar más que EE.UU. y sus aliados podría resultar acertada”.
El triunfo ruso en el conflicto ucraniano desencadenaría un flujo de refugiados hacia la UE, aumentando la presión sobre ciertos servicios en los países afectados y agravando las tensiones entre los miembros, indicó un funcionario occidental. Asimismo, la posible transición ucraniana a las tácticas de guerrilla perpetuaría la instabilidad en la frontera este de la UE.
Al mismo tiempo el acercamiento de Rusia a los países de Europa central y su dominación en el mar Negro gracias a la posición de Crimea obligarían a EE.UU. a emprender inversiones significativas en las fuerzas europeas para conseguir una disuasión fiable. Esto requeriría un considerable despliegue de fuerzas terrestres y de aeronaves.
Dadas las limitaciones de la industria militar estadounidense, es muy probable que la Casa Blanca se enfrente a una elección entre mantener suficientes fuerzas en Asia frente a un potencial ataque chino contra Taiwán o disuadir un potencial ataque ruso a la OTAN, argumenta el Instituto para el Estudio de la Guerra en un reciente informe.
“Toda esa empresa costaría una fortuna”, y “el coste durará mientras persista la amenaza rusa, potencialmente de forma indefinida”, opinó el historiador militar Frederick Kagan, uno de los analistas citados en el informe.
El ministro de Exteriores británico, David Cameron, afirmó el martes que su país y Francia seguirán apoyando a Ucrania tanto tiempo como sea necesaria hasta que Rusia sea derrotada.
Al respecto, Dmitri Peskov, portavoz del presidente ruso, comentó que tal postura conllevará a un mayor agotamiento de los recursos y a una mayor implicación de estos países en el conflicto ucraniano. “Conocemos bien esta posición, no puede cambiar el curso de los acontecimientos”, subrayó el vocero del Kremlin.
Por su parte, Putin calificó recientemente de “una completa tontería” la afirmación de su homólogo estadounidense, Joe Biden, de que Moscú podría atacar a un país de la OTAN. “Creo que el presidente Biden lo entiende, esto es solo una figura retórica para justificar su política errónea entorno a Rusia”, señaló el mandatario.
“Rusia no tiene ninguna razón, ningún interés, ni geopolítico, ni económico, ni político, ni militar, para luchar contra los países de la OTAN. No tenemos reclamaciones territoriales entre nosotros y no tenemos ningún deseo de estropear las relaciones con ellos”, explicó.
[wpdiscuz-feedback id=”z7d2czhbwm” question=”¿Qué opina usted de esta situación?” opened=”0″]
PrisioneroEnArgentina.com
Diciembre 26, 2023
[/wpdiscuz-feedback]
Tags: Biden, Putin, Rusia, UcraniaRelated Posts
El Impacto Humano de Stalingrado
◘ Por Cyd Ollack. Stalingrado no fue una [...]
Viajes en el tiempo y batallas de robots
♣ El excomandante en jefe de las Fuerzas Armadas [...]
¿Pueden los BRICS y los sistemas de pago gratuitos de China amenazar al dólar estadounidense?
◘ Por Jason Riccardo. El panorama financiero mundial [...]
21 thoughts on “El día después de “¿Y si Rusia gana?””
-
-
- Sonia S
- posted on December 27, 2023
-
- Julia
- posted on December 26, 2023
-
- Joe Googan
- posted on December 26, 2023
-
- Rex Snow
- posted on December 26, 2023
-
- Sonia S
- posted on December 27, 2023
-
- King of Harlem
- posted on December 26, 2023
-
- Wess Linfield
- posted on December 26, 2023
-
- Leonard Schummer
- posted on December 26, 2023
-
- Antonio
- posted on December 26, 2023
-
- bobby sholtstein
- posted on December 26, 2023
-
- ryan courtenay
- posted on December 26, 2023
-
- Vince Cook
- posted on December 26, 2023
-
- joel smith-jones
- posted on December 26, 2023
-
- Craig Carter
- posted on December 26, 2023
-
- bobby maguire
- posted on December 26, 2023
-
- anthony bennett
- posted on December 26, 2023
-
- Nick Borgan
- posted on December 26, 2023
-
- michael stone-jones
- posted on December 26, 2023
-
- Mack_Jenssen_50/50
- posted on December 26, 2023
-
- bobby sholtstein
- posted on December 26, 2023
CommentPingback: Moscú está preparado para una confrontación prolongada con EE.UU. – Prisionero en Argentina
By now, in this day and age, we still haven’t learned that in wars, only those who crave them come out as winners.
In these Christmas days, the common people only wish for peace and prosperity. And I don’t believe it’s merely a cliché, but a genuine desire.
My last pay test was $9,500 operating 12 hours per week online. My buddy has been averaging 15,000 for months now and she works approximately 20 hours every week. I can not accept as true with how easy it become as soon as I tried it out.
Go Here——————————— >>> http://Www.BizWork1.Com
Let’s break this: should Russia win the war against Ukraine; it would massively impact the world’s economy. Not only that, but it would also be a steppingstone to reforming the Soviet Union. The victory over Ukraine would cement Russia’s place as a force to be reckoned with even though they really aren’t. Ukraine is an incredibly important country to our daily lives than we thought. Under Russia, our daily lives would change and with China’s attempt to retake Taiwan, this could spell the beginning for WW3, which is something we do not want. With this in mind, NATO is deciding whether it is worth risking a third world war to save Ukraine and Taiwan. A third world war could be more dangerous than the past two with the presence of modern weaponry, armour and equipment. And not to forget, THE NUKES! The stakes are too high, and NATO may consider not assisting Ukraine in order to prevent a third world war. While, I think this makes sense, it is also a HUGE risk as the reformation of the Soviet Union could mean that the economy would be in a really bad state and alliances like NATO, or the EU may lose a lot of their military might. It would take another few decades for the Soviet Union to once again collapse. This is also why the US is considering leaving NATO as it is so important in keeping the world together. This means that the US can set its own parameters for Russia and help prevent another major invasion. This is helped without the burden of NATO’s set parameters. Conclusion: Russia will reform the Soviet Union and cause WW3 with the help of China and, dare I say it, the US.
There is no longer Soviet Union.
Putin acts as if he were in the extinct USSR
The previous administrations criticism of NATO wasn’t for the necessity or efficacy of NATO. It was a protest of how much the US invests into NATO and how seriously its interests are taken. Many nations see the US as the big stick in the world and have reduced their military spending accordingly. Unfortunately, much of that spending decrease also means not paying the expected 2% GDP agreed to as part of their NATO membership. Prior to Finland/Sweden entry, only five nations were paying 2%+. The other 25 simply weren’t. Nations that were arguably acting against US interests, such as Turkey, are among those who aren’t paying. It’s easy to look at the top level and bemoan that the US doesn’t support NATO. And that being the case, it’s easy to panic about the US leaving NATO. The possibility of that happening, even under a Trump administration, is minute. The access that NATO membership provides to member nations and the idea of “Fighting the enemy over there” are simply too great to dismiss. What’s not supported is the notion that the US is obligated to fight for other nations who do “Pay their fair share”. They get US protection at rock bottom prices.
I Doubt this scenario would ever end in a proper victory for Putin, at least without triggering what would more than likely have immense potential to end up as a world-ending nuclear war
I was actually surprised Ukraine had so many volunteered recruits, they were overmanned and were sent to other areas of defense.
Si Rusia derrota a Ucrania EEUU va a tener que redoblar su arsenal.;
This war vastly diminished Russian economy and military capabiliity. A realistic Russian vistory would come at a cost of their world power status most likely.
Russia’s army is actually much smaller than estimated. They only sent 200k troops to ukraine, so if they’re relying on mobilization rather than the 1.2 million extra troops that they should have, then that means their army is much smaller than first estimated.
The Brits did not like the European Union, but we love Europe. The last six or so years have certainly been a rollercoaster (biggest understatement ever) and I think the UK was struggling to find its position in the world, but this war has woken us up. To use a Scouse phrase, the war has made us “give our heads a wobble”.
The Anglosphere (UK, Canada, and US), the Baltics, and Poland are the strongest supporters for Ukraine. EU or no EU, we still will defend our shared values of democracy.
Russia has already lost the war, his goal of curbing NATO expansion has backfired and and lead to Finland and Sweden Joining the alliance and all other members realizing they need to bolster their forces. so even if Russia pulls off an a miracle and wins the battle of Ukraine (which they won’t). It’ll be a Pyrrhic Victory, as he’s strengthened NATO and suffered such staggering military, human and economic losses it’ll take the Russian’s 50+ years to bounce back militarily, economically and humanly.
The problem is that if Russia does defeat Ukraine and then decides to turn to Moldova, Romania would likely step in. Romania would almost certainly refuse to give up the large ethnic Romanian population in Moldova to Moscow a 2nd time when the majority of Romanians seem to support some sort of integration of Moldova into Romania.
Russia would likely start by annexing Transnistria, not all of Moldova. Depending on how that went they could say that other parts of the country “also have large Russian populations that are being oppressed” and try to take even more ground.
I doubt that Romania will fight with Russia for Moldova. I mean, isn’t Romania one of the EU countries along with Hungary who is still buying Russian gas and oil?
There are some very unreasonable assumptions being made here. First, there only seems to be one version of a Russian victory; total annexation of Ukraine. It is still possible that Russia could “Win” while only annexing it
s current occupied territories, with a smaller Ukrainian state still existing. Either way, the Russian flag flying over Kiev or Mariupol would not be the end of Russias trouble in Ukraine. It would then turn into a protracted insurgency.The only reason the US had shaky relations with NATO is because most of the other countries weren’t carrying their weight. We were just trying to hold everyone accountable
Trump talked about reducing the support for NATO because many members were not contributing the necessary amount to their own militaries. With the war, a lot of europeans countries have upped their military spending so even if Trump was still in office, the US would still very much support NATO.
Trump is sick