[BostonCard]

Russia and other belligerents just need to *think* article v will be used and that the risk isn’t worth testing it out for it to be effective.  But it needs to be a credible threat.  But I think it is given that recent wars have turned the advantage in favor of a defender.  The days of blitzing an opponent and rolling into a city with tanks is over; the only way, I think, to win an offensive war is going to be with a finely coordinated combined arms effort.  And if the Russians couldn’t pull it off against their next door neighbor, it seems exceedingly unlikely that they would be able to pull it off against NATO, even the somewhat isolated Baltics, especially, as seems likely, if Finland and possibly Sweden join.

The defensive advantage means that Russia almost certainly can’t pull off an offensive war against NATO without, god help us, deploying nuclear weapons.  It also means that NATO probably successfully attack Russia if it wanted to either.

BC

[BostonCard]

Russia and other belligerents just need to *think* article v will be used and that the risk isn’t worth testing it out for it to be effective.  But it needs to be a credible threat.  But I think it is given that recent wars have turned the advantage in favor of a defender.  The days of blitzing an opponent and rolling into a city with tanks is over; the only way, I think, to win an offensive war is going to be with a finely coordinated combined arms effort.  And if the Russians couldn’t pull it off against their next door neighbor, it seems exceedingly unlikely that they would be able to pull it off against NATO, even the somewhat isolated Baltics, especially, as seems likely, if Finland and possibly Sweden join.

The defensive advantage means that Russia almost certainly can’t pull off an offensive war against NATO without, god help us, deploying nuclear weapons.  It also means that NATO probably successfully attack Russia if it wanted to either.

BC