> Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine has prompted the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation to restore its own military capabilities to Cold War-era levels, as well as to reconsider its approach to deterrence on its eastern borders.
>
> As The New York Times wrote, NATO is rapidly moving from what the military calls deterrence by retaliation to deterrence by denial.
>
> Previously, in the event of a Russian invasion, member states had to hold out until allied forces, mainly the US, came to their aid and retaliated to push the Russians back.
>
> But after the Russian atrocities in areas it occupied in Ukraine, Poland and the Baltic countries no longer want to risk any period of Russian occupation. As in the first days of the Ukrainian invasion, Russian troops took land larger than some Baltic nations.
>
> “Deterrence by denial” means, on the contrary, the permanent location of allied troops near the border with the Russian Federation, more integration of American and allied war plans, more military spending and more detailed requirements for allies to have specific kinds of forces and equipment to fight, if necessary, in pre-assigned places.
>
> “The intention is to make NATO’s forces not only more robust and more capable but also more visible to Russia, a key element of deterrence,” The NYT said.
>
> …
> “If you compare the sizes of Ukraine and the Baltic countries, it would mean the complete destruction of countries and our culture,” the FT reported Kallas saying
Finland joining certainly made a difference for that as well. But Russia’s failed invasion even more so.
World has seen how much damage Moskovia can do to the civilian population during a temporary occupation.
Was that ever a rule?
Muscovy learning the hard lessons: they ain’t all that.
The EU needs to get that EU Army up and running yesterday.
How about ocupiing 3rd country territory in the event of a NATO atack?
This makes sense. It will require far stronger militaries though, because defense in depth is simply better from military pov if you can do it.
But yeah defense in depth does force you to abandon some civilians to foreign occuppation.
Ideal solution in theory would be if Russian border is made full of swamps. They have military value especially in greatly slowing down enemy, are too moist to just burn easily and are great for wildlife. Terraforming has historically not been great for enviroment, but if there are areas where it can be done in environmentally friendly way, it would be perfect.
Might also want to do what Finland has done since 1930s and build bomb shelters for civilian population. Peacetime they can be used for recreational activities of all kind if they are big enough, and smaller ones can be used for light storage that is quick to clear away.
8 comments
> Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine has prompted the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation to restore its own military capabilities to Cold War-era levels, as well as to reconsider its approach to deterrence on its eastern borders.
>
> As The New York Times wrote, NATO is rapidly moving from what the military calls deterrence by retaliation to deterrence by denial.
>
> Previously, in the event of a Russian invasion, member states had to hold out until allied forces, mainly the US, came to their aid and retaliated to push the Russians back.
>
> But after the Russian atrocities in areas it occupied in Ukraine, Poland and the Baltic countries no longer want to risk any period of Russian occupation. As in the first days of the Ukrainian invasion, Russian troops took land larger than some Baltic nations.
>
> “Deterrence by denial” means, on the contrary, the permanent location of allied troops near the border with the Russian Federation, more integration of American and allied war plans, more military spending and more detailed requirements for allies to have specific kinds of forces and equipment to fight, if necessary, in pre-assigned places.
>
> “The intention is to make NATO’s forces not only more robust and more capable but also more visible to Russia, a key element of deterrence,” The NYT said.
>
> …
[Under the previous plan, Ruzzia was allowed to overrun and occupy Baltics for 180 days, after which NATO was supposed to liberate them.](https://news.err.ee/1608638245/kallas-estonia-would-be-wiped-from-map-under-existing-nato-plans)
> “If you compare the sizes of Ukraine and the Baltic countries, it would mean the complete destruction of countries and our culture,” the FT reported Kallas saying
Finland joining certainly made a difference for that as well. But Russia’s failed invasion even more so.
World has seen how much damage Moskovia can do to the civilian population during a temporary occupation.
Was that ever a rule?
Muscovy learning the hard lessons: they ain’t all that.
The EU needs to get that EU Army up and running yesterday.
How about ocupiing 3rd country territory in the event of a NATO atack?
This makes sense. It will require far stronger militaries though, because defense in depth is simply better from military pov if you can do it.
But yeah defense in depth does force you to abandon some civilians to foreign occuppation.
Ideal solution in theory would be if Russian border is made full of swamps. They have military value especially in greatly slowing down enemy, are too moist to just burn easily and are great for wildlife. Terraforming has historically not been great for enviroment, but if there are areas where it can be done in environmentally friendly way, it would be perfect.
Might also want to do what Finland has done since 1930s and build bomb shelters for civilian population. Peacetime they can be used for recreational activities of all kind if they are big enough, and smaller ones can be used for light storage that is quick to clear away.