| UA-RU WAR | NATO Crisis | ANALYSIS & DISCUSSION

[Publius]

All of them, except for Turkey and perhaps Slovakia.
Even though, initially, France and Germany were opposed.

Ukraine should have been brought into NATO back in 2013 and 2014.
Germany and France were against it.

Possibly correct, it would have short circuited several things.
This brings up another question. There is a process and qualifiers for a nation to join the organization. From clearly known stable boarders to certain domestic processes that must be in sync with the treaty. If I remember correctly it was those domestic processes and practices that were used to block Russia from joining. How fair or credible those were I don’t really know.

But it does identify a conundrum. In 2013 and 14 there was not consensus in the organization for Ukraine to join. Unclear and disputed boarders being one and as of that time unproven domestic practices and policies.
There was a general consensus that Ukraine could join eventually but there were several constraints for why they could not yet. Even Poland and bordering nations with Ukraine were not expecting immediate membership.

Then Russia roiled the boarder and Crimea with insurgency activity and the whole question of joining at the time was moot.

We’re expecting NATO members to defend Ukraine like a quasi member even though there was never any real consensus to letting them join

The argument of what about Russia consuming the next small non NATO state is not a NATO mandate. No member has been attacked.

None of this says Ukraine shouldn’t be defended, but just as there were limits 10-15 years ago on them joining. There are limits to how far members are willing to go in this defense.

I don’t or can’t say what the outcome will be for Ukraine except it’s going to take a much more proactive and aggressive possibly force on force to regain Ukraines territory and once accepted sovereignty.
I just don’t see any scenario of only sending aid and weapons to Ukraine as an eventual win for Ukraine.
I could be wrong I suppose but I’ve read no one anywhere claim this as a long term winning strategy.

I can also concede that how Trump is trying to press the issue of negotiated settlement might fail or be wrong in its approach. Just that it is not wrong to try.

 

[Sentry]

Possibly correct, it would have short circuited several things.
This brings up another question. There is a process and qualifiers for a nation to join the organization. From clearly known stable boarders to certain domestic processes that must be in sync with the treaty. If I remember correctly it was those domestic processes and practices that were used to block Russia from joining. How fair or credible those were I don’t really know.

But it does identify a conundrum. In 2013 and 14 there was not consensus in the organization for Ukraine to join. Unclear and disputed boarders being one and as of that time unproven domestic practices and policies.
There was a general consensus that Ukraine could join eventually but there were several constraints for why they could not yet. Even Poland and bordering nations with Ukraine were not expecting immediate membership.

Then Russia roiled the boarder and Crimea with insurgency activity and the whole question of joining at the time was moot.

We’re expecting NATO members to defend Ukraine like a quasi member even though there was never any real consensus to letting them join

The argument of what about Russia consuming the next small non NATO state is not a NATO mandate. No member has been attacked.

None of this says Ukraine shouldn’t be defended, but just as there were limits 10-15 years ago on them joining. There are limits to how far members are willing to go in this defense.

I don’t or can’t say what the outcome will be for Ukraine except it’s going to take a much more proactive and aggressive possibly force on force to regain Ukraines territory and once accepted sovereignty.
I just don’t see any scenario of only sending aid and weapons to Ukraine as an eventual win for Ukraine.
I could be wrong I suppose but I’ve read no one anywhere claim this as a long term winning strategy.

I can also concede that how Trump is trying to press the issue of negotiated settlement might fail or be wrong in its approach. Just that it is not wrong to try.

What is a solution that establishes deterrence and prevents Russia from doing this to someone else in the future?

 

[RiffRaff]

It has long been established military concensus that a full scale conventional invasion of any NATO country by Russia could not be stopped using conventional response. The Ukraine War may have caused that viewpoint to be reevaluated, but the fear of Soviet/Russian invasion runs deep in Europeans, especially former Soviet countries. People might react in panic and use nuclear weapons when none were really required. But even then, there are very few Russia/NATO scenarios that don't escalate to nuclear weapons in Europe. If Russia ever makes a serious move against NATO, I will immediately begin preparing for a very quick nuclear escalation.

 

[GBS61]

What is a solution that establishes deterrence and prevents Russia from doing this to someone else in the future?

Unfortunately, there is no solution; this is how the world has always functioned.
Let us recall:
At its peak in the 1920s, the British Empire was the largest in history, covering more than a quarter of the Earth's landmass. Even Canada and India belonged to it.
Today, the three major powers—the USA, China, and Russia—are attempting to turn back the clock. It is not just Russia; the USA has invaded Venezuela (for its oil)—with Cuba potentially next—while China has its sights set on Taiwan.
In reality, the USA is doing the very same thing it criticizes Russia for.

In truth, the world is regressing, and all of this will end in a horrific world war.

 

[Publius]

What is a solution that establishes deterrence and prevents Russia from doing this to someone else in the future?

Military strengthening by the individual nations potentially at risk. Entering into bi-lateral or multi-lateral trade and security agreements or treaties.
Again is this posed as if Russia would try this against a nato member or non treaty member.
The two must be separated, at least at this place in time. Arguably, I think, the NATO alliance is probably stronger now than it’s been in a couple of decades. The majority of members are on guard and very wary of Russias intentions. They’re populations are more aware and concerned, they’re spending more money and effort on defense. As well as cooperating more with other members and neighbors.

Non-treaty members are not benefiting from this obviously. The question that needs asked is, can or should all of them be defended against Russian expansionism.
No, they cannot all be shielded or defended equally. When did it become the assumption that all nations could always be protected equally.

As long as Russia has oil to sell and there are nations willing to buy it. Then this state of affairs with Russia is not going to change purely by threat of opposition.

There is no police force and courts to haul them into and judge them.

We in the west have lived under the illusion that international norms and behaviors could be enforced like national or local laws. You can guide and shape the field but there was never any absolute control or consensus.

What has happened to Ukraine is NATO told ourselves we could outspend Russia and impose the moral high ground and eventually Russia would capitulate.
I was never convinced this alone would work. But that’s more of me just hedging my bets on outcome. I had no doubt NATO combined could militarily overwhelm Russia inside Ukraine.
But I seem to be the minority.

Bottom line there was never anything like the Oath Eorl between NATO and Ukraine. So the forces of Rohan never came.