Replies to post #515043 on Tornado Alley (PROG)

[janice shell]

So you're saying Putin and Trumpty can continue to be besties? That sure is how it looks.

[blackhawks]

Putin's nightmare, since the inception of NATO, has been the 'nuclear sword' wielded firstly by the U.S and then by both France and the U.K.

Why has NATO been a military deterrent to Moscow since before Putin was in power?

Strategic Continuities and Russian Perceptions
Deterrence by Punishment vs. Denial

NATO’s deterrent efficacy has historically derived from a dual approach: deterrence by punishment (threatening disproportionate retaliation) and deterrence by denial (preventing territorial gains through forward defense)210. During the Cold War, this duality manifested in the “sword and shield” strategy—U.S. strategic nuclear forces (the sword) backed by European conventional forces (the shield).

Post-1991, NATO maintained this balance by modernizing its nuclear triad while enhancing rapid-reaction brigades and multinational battlegroups in the Baltics46. Moscow perceived these measures as existential threats, particularly NATO’s refusal to rule out further enlargement, which Russian leaders viewed as encirclement811.

The Psychological Dimension of Deterrence

NATO’s enduring deterrent strength lies in its ability to shape adversary risk calculus. Soviet and Russian leaders consistently cited NATO cohesion and U.S. nuclear guarantees as constraints on aggressive designs.

For instance, the 1979 “dual-track” decision—deploying GLCMs while pursuing arms control—exploited Moscow’s fear of technological inferiority, ultimately compelling Soviet concessions in the INF Treaty17. Similarly, NATO’s post-Cold War exercises and transparency measures, such as the 1997 Founding Act, aimed to signal defensive intent while underscoring the alliance’s capacity for escalation dominance812.

Conclusion: A Legacy of Strategic Consistency

NATO’s role as a military deterrent predates Putin’s rise by half a century, anchored in institutional adaptability and the strategic integration of nuclear and conventional forces.

From the early doctrines of massive retaliation to the nuanced flexible response, and through post-Cold War enlargement, the alliance has consistently projected a blend of resolve and restraint designed to deter aggression. While Putin’s regime has intensified confrontational rhetoric and actions—including the 2022 invasion of Ukraine—NATO’s foundational strategies continue to reflect lessons forged in the Cold War: that credible deterrence requires both the capability to inflict unacceptable costs and the demonstrated will to do so911. As geopolitical tensions persist, the alliance’s historical success offers a template for balancing deterrence with diplomacy in an increasingly multipolar world.

https://www.perplexity.ai/hub/blog/introducing-perplexity-deep-research

[janice shell]

Read this; perhaps it will help you understand:

Save Ukraine, Save The World.
Slava Ukraini!

https://therickwilson.substack.com/p/save-ukraine-save-the-world?utm_source=post-email-title&publication_id=1887091&post_id=157804584&utm_campaign=email-post-title&isFreemail=true&r=1kxqrv&triedRedirect=true&utm_medium=email

Rick Wilson used to be a Republican.