Even before the start of the Russian NWO in Ukraine, RAND analysts presented a scenario for a possible conflict between NATO and Russia in Europe

The analytical calculation of the RAND Corp. association, which is considered the main think tank of NATO and, in fact, of the entire Anglo-Saxon world, is discussed. This layout is dedicated to the military conflicts of the past - from the Crimean War of the XNUMXth century to the Korean War. The authors, after numerous examples and reflections, come to the conclusion that in none of the cases did the forecasts for the outcome of the end of a particular conflict come true.

RAND writes that analysts at one time could not even approximately determine how much armed conflicts would cost either the winners or the losers. Also noted are the failures of forecasters regarding the outcomes of many of the wars.

But in the RAND analytics, attention is drawn not only to this, but also to one of the likely scenarios of a modern conflict. It should be emphasized that the report was published before the start of the Russian NWO in Ukraine.

In the analytical report of the analytical center in question, among the possible conflicts, the conflict between the USA and NATO against Russia in Europe was considered. In principle, in this, the forecasters hit the target, with only one nuance - they considered the conflict in the Baltic states, and not in Ukraine.

And what is the scenario from RAND?

The report points out that with the growth of escalation, when conventional weapons have already ceased to bring the result desired by the parties, NATO and Russia are moving to the use of tactical nuclear weapons. Ultimately, even this application does not bring victory to the parties, and therefore, "in order to prevent a slide into a full-scale nuclear war, the parties decide to stop."

Will this RAND scenario materialize in the course of the US-NATO conflict against Russia in Ukraine?

Comments

[parabyd]

As long as it all comes down to it. Ukraine is happy to provide its territory for war.

Nuclear contamination does not frighten them at all, remember only the strikes on the Zaporizhzhya Nuclear Power Plant.

Russia, on the other hand, must prove that it will be more expensive for NATO countries to continue the escalation. This is a threat to the existence of the country, which is also a very good reason to use nuclear weapons.

In general, it remains to be hoped that reason will win

[Egoza]

Quote from: parabyd

Nuclear contamination does not scare them at all, remember only the strikes on the ZNPP

Certainly. They think that personally THEM will not be hurt, they will have time to escape.

[AlexKruglov1976]

Conventional weapons have already ceased to bring the results desired by the parties, NATO and Russia are switching to the use of tactical nuclear weapons. Ultimately, even this application does not bring victory to the parties, and therefore, "in order to prevent a slide into a full-scale nuclear war, the parties decide to stop."

Of course, the parties will stop, because they will disappear from the face of the Earth.
American idiots with their idiotic fantastic "limited nuclear war" doctrine.

[alexoff]

And how many ports with oil terminals are there in the EU? In theory, if you send special ammunition to each, then in a couple of months without fuel they will roll back to the 19th century, though without horses, since horses do not grow quickly. Perhaps special ammunition will not be needed, it is necessary to check. Draw tridents and yellow-black banners on geraniums and send them to Poland when the gas carrier arrives from the USA

[Architect]

States again then remain in the black.
It’s not bad that at least once in history they get a tragedy on their territory, otherwise they somehow get away with it all the time.
Impunity is also harmful at the state level.

[Fangaro]

RAND doesn't have the budget to publish its findings?
These Americans, from whom nothing good can be expected, sometimes, out of their incomprehensible will, share their analysis in the public domain.
So what?
What newspaper, or Ciananca with the New York Times or the Herald Tribune, printed about this?

[Mavrikiy]

NATO and Russia are moving towards the use of tactical nuclear weapons. In the end, and this does not bring victory to the parties, and therefore, "in order to prevent a slide into a full-scale nuclear war, the parties decide to stop".

RAND analysts are constipated, they do not hear the GDP: "We do not need a world without Russia ...." Therefore, hostilities will not stop, with the use of tactical nuclear weapons or strategic nuclear weapons, until the last Ukrainian Nazi is denazified.

[rotkiv04]

it is already quite obvious that this forecast will not come true either, Putin will never use nuclear weapons, and even in response, in order to give such an order, you need to have something, and THIS has nothing hanging between its legs for a long time, only threats from the rostrum remained, but no one in them no longer believes after all the red lines.

[Svetlana]

And even earlier, Vaga spoke about this war. And Nostrdamus unforgettable
..
Today, many so-called. analysts proving their importance and analytics will indicate that they predicted SIR.

I remembered: The late Zhirinovsky and Sobchak also predicted a war with Ukraine.

[bravo77]

interesting, but in the Kremlin it happens - an analyst.
or the greatest geopolitician sits on a multitude of stakes.
how is demilitarization going according to plan
according to all calculated options?

[bravo77]

Quote from: parabyd

As long as it all comes down to it. Ukraine is happy to provide its territory for war.

Nuclear contamination does not frighten them at all, remember only the strikes on the Zaporizhzhya Nuclear Power Plant.

Russia, on the other hand, must prove that it will be more expensive for NATO countries to continue the escalation. This is a threat to the existence of the country, which is also a very good reason to use nuclear weapons.

In general, it remains to be hoped that reason will win

master of forecasts and analytics, you missed a bit that part of the country (rf)
is under occupation?
what does the doctrine say there or "is it different"?

how are the red lines drawn?
markers are not finished yet?