UA-RU-NATO War & Ukraine Peace Talks | Discussions

[william]

I disagree based upon historic agreements it is reasonable for Ukraine to expect some material guarantees. And frankly because nato has supported them this long they owe them some cover. What that might look like I don’t know.

It is possible, I’m unsure what that military build up might look like.

are you following deployment status of key US military units? I haven’t for a while.

From last April

‘A chronic threat’: US forces in Europe will continue eastward shift as Russia builds up its army, top US general says. American troops surged toward NATO’s eastern flank in 2022 and now have a presence in Poland, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Romania, Bulgaria, Hungary and Slovakia.

‘A chronic threat’: US forces in Europe will continue eastward shift as Russia builds up its army, top US general says

Army Gen. Christopher Cavoli, the top general for U.S. forces in Europe, said Thursday that the military will continue to push troops into Eastern Europe as host countries build up the infrastructure to accommodate them amid a renewed threat from Russia.

www.stripes.com

From last month

No plans to draw down US troops in Europe for now, Hegseth says. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth said administration officials have no short-term plans to cut U.S. troop levels in Europe but are committed to reviewing American military posture worldwide to ensure that forces are prepositioned in the right regions.
​

“The European continent deserves to be free from any aggression, but it ought be those in the neighborhood investing the most in that defense,” he said. “That’s common sense. You defend your neighborhood, and the Americans will come alongside you in helping in that defense.”


But for now, Hegseth said, that approach does not include cutting U.S. forces in the region.

No plans to draw down US troops in Europe for now, Hegseth says

Top defense officials will conduct a reivew of U.S. troops deployed worldwide to determine future personnel levels overseas.

www.militarytimes.com

I agree with this

It is reasonable for Ukraine to expect some material guarantees.

I disagree with this

it is reasonable for Ukraine to demand some material guarantees.

During the Cold War, the U.S. stationed troops in Western Europe for the purpose of deterring the Soviet Union. The vast majority were in West Germany. At a peak in the late 1950s, more than 400,000 U.S. troops were deployed in ally countries across the continent.

When you start seeing numbers like this, you'll know it's getting serious.

 

[Snowfall]

They wouldn't invade from Kalingrad. They have turned that shit into an air defense fortress. They just have to hold it long enough for Troops from Belarus and the capitulated Baltic states to connect the Suwalki Gap. Kalingrad is like their knife pointed towards Europe with missiles.

Two problems though 1. They wouldn’t be able to capture the Baltics because whatever build up they would have would be seen by satellite and NATO would respond with its own. 2. The Belarusian border with Poland is already heavily fortified for that very reason.
This is also ignoring the fact that Poland is the most militarized nation in Europe right now. I understand why European leaders speak the way they do because they need to increase defense spending, but without some major buildup of the Russian military which will take decades the odds of them being a legitimate threat to NATO are slim. Unless of course Europe decides it wants to sit on its hands and not enhance its deterrent capabilities.

 

[Publius]

From last April

From last month


I agree with this

I disagree with this


When you start seeing numbers like this, you'll know it's getting serious.

Absolutely in principle and moral grounds I agree.
It that’s not real world foreign power dynamics.
Should we ( NATO) yes,
Can we and achieve peace, I don’t know.

So if this is a stumbling block for anyone they have to acknowledge that NATO troops might need to enter this fight in Eastern Europe with the full gauntlet or western warfare weaponry engaging the Russian army.

I’m on record if we’re going to do it then get to it.
But if the capitals of Europe and US are not willing to do this then what’s the solution?
Putin will as I’ve said balk at first round negotiations. Are we prepared to up the anti.
I just don’t see this happening unless Putin totally trashes the negotiations. Which if he does and Trump is true to his campaign the stakes will go up.

This is like the emancipation proclamation. Lincoln needed to issue it to ad a moral justification to continuing the civil war, for the northern population. Not those held in slavery.
Trump has to have Putin screw the talks to justify escalation. He gets that or he gets a manageable peace settlement.

 

[NuclearID]

But ask yourself one simple question, if Putin is plotting to attack NATO, then why do so many officials say the only way for Ukraine to have peace is for them to join NATO?

[False Equivalence]

Putin would only attack NATO if it were undermined, looked weak, or lacked unity which is exactly what Trump is doing to NATO by weakening alliances and casting doubt on U.S. commitments. Undermining NATO doesn't prevent war, it invites it.

Ukraine joining NATO is about deterrence. The only reason Putin would test NATO is if he believed the alliance was too weak or divided to respond. And what’s causing that division? Trump’s actions in ostracizing allies, threatening to withdraw from NATO, and signaling that the U.S. might not uphold its commitments. That emboldens Putin, not deters him.

@Peter Griffin, I noticed you were shocked at what he said, don’t fall for that loaded Russian talking point. Putin will only attack NATO if he believes he can get away with it. Thanks to Trump, he just might......

 

[Gargolu]

Why the hell would you send weapons on a ship through Turkey when you could drive them across the polish border? The only sources claiming it was weapons are Russian of which they have provided you zero pictures you can track the ship online from where it left and where it is.

Shit i Don't know!!! why do i have 10 news articles saying a ship was bombed by the russians had 150 troops and weapons and only two articles say it was food?? then i have to read 50 postings on reddit telling me its bullshit.

 

[Publius]

Well all things taken together Europe might mobilize but it will be anemic.

I never implied there was a draw down on of US forces in Europe. Training of US forces in Europe has been almost continuous.
But we’re along way from 400,000.
My point except for the continuous training there might be at a max number of 20000 US troops in Eastern Europe. It’s going to take 2 years for Germany to form their new mechanized battalion to deploy in the Baltics.

There is no question in my mind the experienced professional solders in the NATO armies can and would provide a powerful force. Especially with Russias ravaged military.

I hope European nations actually step up and send troops. I suppose my issues is theirs has been a general apathy of nato capitals to commit to provide this security guarantee till now, maybe.
It’s hypocritical to slam Trump for trying to start peace negotiations given the attitude and commitment to the war by many nations. Britain says they will IF the US backs their move.
Where were they for the last three years?
And why is it up to the US to be the spear
When collectively they are larger and as well armed for land and air war as the US and it is after all their back yard

 

[Snowfall]

[False Equivalence]

Putin would only attack NATO if it were undermined, looked weak, or lacked unity which is exactly what Trump is doing to NATO by weakening alliances and casting doubt on U.S. commitments. Undermining NATO doesn't prevent war, it invites it.

Ukraine joining NATO is about deterrence. The only reason Putin would test NATO is if he believed the alliance was too weak or divided to respond. And what’s causing that division? Trump’s actions in ostracizing allies, threatening to withdraw from NATO, and signaling that the U.S. might not uphold its commitments. That emboldens Putin, not deters him.

@Peter Griffin, I noticed you were shocked at what he said, don’t fall for that loaded Russian talking point. Putin will only attack NATO if he believes he can get away with it. Thanks to Trump, he just might......

“Ukraine joining NATO is about deterrence” exactly, joining NATO is the best way to prevent a Russian invasion, but again if Putin isn’t deterred then what’s the point of joining NATO? Also find me one ACTION from the United States that shows they are actively considering withdrawing from NATO. Trump has only threatened to not defend NATO allies when they don’t pay their fair share, which has led to a massive surge in European defense spending. So in conclusion, they did exactly what Trump wanted them to do. There’s a reason Trump speaks so highly of the polish military when you see their defense spending. As for NATO’s credibility keep spending on defense like that and you don’t have to worry about Russia. Trump doesn’t speak in the most diplomatic of terms, which I agree is not the best, but if it gets Europe to spend on defense like they should’ve continued doing after the Cold War then I see no downfalls.

 

[Deleted account]

Trump has to have Putin screw the talks to justify escalation. He gets that or he gets a manageable peace settlement.

Russia will not currently risk open war with the United States - including by attacking third countries where they believe the US may be drawn into a war. Everything they've done over the past 3 years confirms this - and I do follow the stuff that comes out official (and less than official) Russian channels. Things may change down the line if the US continues to self-destruct at the current rate.

What Russians are good at is not blinking. Putin will never go out and publicly state "we must do everything to prevent nuclear war" (he just says "we'll use our nukes if we have to" - which is the correct thing to say). Trump, on the other hand, continuously signals he's scared of nuclear war and will do everything to prevent it. To anyone with an above-room-temperature IQ this simply means you can get concessions from the US by threatening nuclear war. Get used to this strategy being employed against the US in various other scenarios, not just in Europe.

In fact - if I were Macron I'd find some less-than-covert way to signal that if Trump continues to schmooze up to Putin and bulldoze translatlantic relations, there are scenarios where France would consider targeting the US with its nukes. I bet that would get his attention. Given that Trump:

• is a coward, and
• doesn't understand how nuclear deterrence works,

...anyone with a couple of warheads (yes, even comrade Kim) effectively has America's balls in their grasp.

 

[Snowfall]

The only reason Putin would test NATO is if he believed the alliance was too weak or divided to respond.

The scariest scenario coming from Russia goes something along the lines of funding partisans in Estonia to rise up against the Estonian government and then supplying them with weapons to fight their military. At which point NATO has to decide how to punish Russia. Putin doesn’t want to fight NATO he wants to break them without firing a shot at them. He doesn’t want article 5 to get invoked he wants to walk as close to the line without it getting crossed as possible. That’s why the idea of him driving tanks across the border like he did in Ukraine is extremely unlikely to me. We’re in Cold War round 2 and it’s time the west relearned how to build a deterrent and fight a proxy war and if took trump scaring the Europeans to rearm than so be it.

 

[Deleted account]

Putin doesn’t want to fight NATO he wants to break them without firing a shot at them. He doesn’t want article 5 to get invoked he wants to walk as close to the line without it getting crossed as possible.

We keep talking about NATO as if that's something that still exists. Huge mistake.

Trump will never honor article 5 if Russian tanks roll into Estonia. All of Europe knows it. Russia knows it. China knows it. Hell, even most of the American political class knows it.

NATO used to be the bedrock of US global influence, and the keystone of its own national security - but now it's gone. Americans killed it at the ballot box on Nov 5. Well; I hope at least the eggs have gotten cheaper...

 

[Snowfall]

We keep talking about NATO as if that's something that still exists. Huge mistake.

Trump will never honor article 5 if Russian tanks roll into Estonia. All of Europe knows it. Russia knows it. China knows it. Hell, even most of the American political class knows it.

NATO used to be the bedrock of US global influence, and the keystone of its own national security - but now it's gone. Americans killed it at the ballot box on Nov 5. Well; I hope at least the eggs have gotten cheaper...

It’s not over till the fat lady sings and the us loves countries that spend a ton on defense which the Baltics excel at. If Europe legitimately thinks Russia will invade the Baltics the solution is simple, deploy 500,000 troops to the Baltic with multiple armor brigades and air divisions.

 

[Deleted account]

It’s not over till the fat lady sings and the us loves countries that spend a ton on defense which the Baltics excel at.

That's a fatal misread of what the US is currently doing. And the country that best fits your definition is Russia.

the solution is simple, deploy 500,000 troops to the Baltic with multiple armor brigades and air divisions.

Oh sure; I have those in my back pocket.

 

[Snowfall]

NATO used to be the bedrock of US global influence, and the keystone of its own national security - but now it's gone. Americans killed it at the ballot box on Nov 5. Well; I hope at least the eggs have gotten cheaper...

Here’s the thing I think people forget. 99% of people in the U.S. could care less about global influence and would rather see those countries spend on their own defense. How far has U.S. influence got us in the past 80 years let’s see most of the world hates us and complains about everything we do, we’ve lost thousands of soldiers in wars in countries a decent portion of the population couldn’t point out on a map, we have a massive homeless problem, we have a massive drug problem, we have horrible relations between our own citizens, and I could go on.

 

[Snowfall]

That's a fatal misread of what the US is currently doing. And the country that best fits your definition is Russia.

Oh sure; I have those in my back pocket.

Europe combined has millions of troops.

 

[Snowfall]

That's a fatal misread of what the US is currently doing. And the country that best fits your definition is Russia.

It’s not a misread pay attention to what leaders do not what they say. The U.S. has done nothing to suggest they are actively considering leaving NATO.

 

[Deleted account]

It’s not a misread pay attention to what leaders do not what they say. The U.S. has done nothing to suggest they are actively considering leaving NATO.

Hegseth ordered the Pentagon to plan for drastic defense budget cuts (8% annually over 5 years iirc), except in the Asia-Pacific and Middle East.

Yeah, the US is ditching NATO. I half-expected Trump to announce it in its speech. He didn't, but the chips are falling into place.

 

[Peter Griffin]

That's a fatal misread of what the US is currently doing. And the country that best fits your definition is Russia.

Oh sure; I have those in my back pocket.

I sure would hate to be on one of those boats to Lithuania... Dunkirk vibes.

 

[Snowfall]

Hegseth ordered the Pentagon to plan for drastic defense budget cuts (8% annually over 5 years iirc), except in the Asia-Pacific and Middle East.

When congress approves a decrease in defense spending talk to me but if you think the MIC lobby is gonna let that happen you’re dreaming. Hegseth also said the U.S. will not be removing troops from Eastern Europe and will stand by the NATO alliance. Listen to how NATO officials describe the gap between talk and action.
“Still, NATO officials at their Brussels headquarters have remained surprisingly calm so far. Their answer to whether the alliance’s demise is imminent is still a resounding “No” for two reasons: the gap between rhetoric and action; and the difference between NATO allies and NATO aspirants – notably Ukraine”

“Take the first reason. As recently as last week, Trump reaffirmed his commitment to NATO’s mutual defense clause, Article 5, in remarksalongside British Prime Minister Keir Starmer.

That stance was reiterated multiple times -- both publicly and privately -- by US Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth during a meeting of NATO defense ministers in Brussels in February.”

Will The US Leave NATO? Officials Push Back Against Rising Doubts

www.rferl.org

Trump wants a strong Europe that is capable of taking care of itself without needing the United States to have its back at every point, that doesn’t mean he’s completely abandoned NATO. They just don’t want the United States to be the only thing holding the alliance together, because if the United States is the only thing holding it together than it’s not a very good alliance it’s a one sided partnership.

 

[NuclearID]

“Ukraine joining NATO is about deterrence” exactly, joining NATO is the best way to prevent a Russian invasion, but again if Putin isn’t deterred then what’s the point of joining NATO? Also find me one ACTION from the United States that shows they are actively considering withdrawing from NATO. Trump has only threatened to not defend NATO allies when they don’t pay their fair share, which has led to a massive surge in European defense spending. So in conclusion, they did exactly what Trump wanted them to do. There’s a reason Trump speaks so highly of the polish military when you see their defense spending. As for NATO’s credibility keep spending on defense like that and you don’t have to worry about Russia. Trump doesn’t speak in the most diplomatic of terms, which I agree is not the best, but if it gets Europe to spend on defense like they should’ve continued doing after the Cold War then I see no downfalls.

Ukraine joining NATO is about deterrence. The only reason Putin would test NATO is if he believed the alliance was too weak or divided to respond. And what’s causing that division? Trump’s actions in ostracizing allies, threatening to withdraw from NATO, and signaling that the U.S. might not uphold its commitments. That emboldens Putin, not deters him.

Putin will only attack NATO if he believes he can get away with it. Thanks to Trump, he just might......

It is simple as that. I have no further intentions on entertaining poor Russian talking points. I see Putin is so far up most the GOPs ass it's sickening. Some so blind to it too, scary.

 

[Gargolu]

Ukraine joining NATO is about deterrence. The only reason Putin would test NATO is if he believed the alliance was too weak or divided to respond. And what’s causing that division? Trump’s actions in ostracizing allies, threatening to withdraw from NATO, and signaling that the U.S. might not uphold its commitments. That emboldens Putin, not deters him.

Putin will only attack NATO if he believes he can get away with it. Thanks to Trump, he just might......

It is simple as that. I have no further intentions on playing these games or entertainment of piss poor russian talking points with you. Shameful you have fallen for that weak shit too.

if NATO wants to go to war then so be it, with america being out of NATO is a great idea let them squabble like homeless people for crumbs. America first and with that said absorb canada and bomb the crap out of mexico and rescue the sexy women.