Sam Lowry said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

I won't abandon Sanity.

I won't lie to sell my position.

I won't ignore the deaths of innocents in the name of politics.

Some here have done so, it appears.

---

You also won't identify how letting Russia annex all/part of Ukraine is preferable to the current situation.

---

Since I oppose Putin's invasion, of course I do not consider that acceptable. Have you ignored all my prior posts?

---

The peace argument for this war is quite weaker than most.

Putin's policy is quite clear, consistent, in both statement and deed. He is going to keep coming westward, with columns armored and fifth, until the Baltics, Poland, Slovakia, Hungary, and Romania are no longer members in Nato. The only question is time...

---

Come on...you can not possibly know that.

Not to mention any invasion, attack, aggression against any NATO state means war with the USA-UK-France-Germany.

Russia of course would be wiped out in such a war.

There is no rational world were we see Russian troop watering their horses in the Danube river.

This statement of "we must stop Russia in Donbas (where the people are ethnic Russians) before they reach Poland or Hungary" is just classic pro-war propaganda.

Hungary (long under the Soviet boot) is the lone voice of peace out there in Europe right now. They are not afraid that Russia is going to come for them next.

If the Hungarians are not afraid why should beltway boomers in D.C. be afraid?

If anything this war against Ukraine as given NATO a new lease on life.

---

How can you possibly ignore that? Beyond the patent weak-man argument of the remaining post, to suggest that we cannot make sound assessments, given Russian intentions and capabilities and MO, shows profound lack of understanding of history and foreign affairs.

Here's a scenario: Ukraine falls. Russia annexes everything east of the Dnieper, and the Ukrainian coast all the way to the Romanian and Moldovan borders. That was the manifest intent of their invasion. If/when that happens, the implications are:
1) Russia now has a supply chain to Transnistria, where a Donbas-type insurgency is underway as we argue. The ability to directly supply the Russian separatists by land means Russia effectively owns Moldova, given the relative size of Transnistria to the Moldovan state. Moldova cannot stop Russia. It immediately becomes a Russian puppet state, unless the West responds with support for the existing government, creating exactly the same dynamic as developed in Ukraine 2010-2022. How far will it go? What are you going to do? Are you going to let it happen? How does another Russian puppet state further US policy interests?
2) The rump Ukrainian state would remain - Lvov and Kiev. What is your policy? Do we just back off and let it go the way of Belarus? Or do we replay the same game we've played in Ukraine since 2014, only with a sharply weaker hand? Why on earth would we chose that option when we have a better one today?
3) Russian armies are currently encamped on 4 Nato borders (Poland, Baltics). If the Ukrainian rump state becomes Belarus 2.0, that number rises to 7. Each one of those seven states are functioning participatory democracies. How will Russian armies on their border impact politics? Will it stiffen their resolve (ala Poland), or will it weaken it (Hungary). For sure, it will not have "no effect." Will Russian efforts to influence their elections be enhanced by their control over Ukraine and Modlova?
4) In democracies, the pendulum swings. Current regimes will be replaced. Usually, that will be by parties with different ideas. How long before we see a party with softly or harshly anti-Nato or even pro-Russian policies swing to power? Wouldn't that increase the possibility of another Maidan crisis? For sure it increases the number of countries in which such could happen to 7 instead of 3.
5) So, you are SecState. All of the above has happened. (the course is certain, if we lose in Ukraine, only the timeline is in question). One odd morning before coffee, you get the phone call from your COS that the Romanian Army has just surrounded key government buildings in Bucharest. Some general you don't remember meeting is making an announcement that new elections will be held in 90 days. What do you do?

The answer is: the very first thing you do is kick yourself in the ass for a few minutes for not stopping Russia in the Donbas.

Because, now, you have to worry about that general announcing a withdrawal from Nato. You have to worry about Russia effectively controlling elections held by the Romanan military, almost certainly electing a pro-Russian government that will announce a withdrawal from Nato. What do you do when each of those things happen? Complicating things, there will likely be an exiled Romanian regime encamped somewhere demanding Article 5 protections. (serious implications follow). Do we invade a Nato member to restore an exiled regime? Remember, how you respond will be watched with somewhat more than passing interest in Budapest, Warsaw, Bratislava, Tallin, Riga, and Vilnius. We would have no proxy to fight for us. it's a Manichean option - we either let it happen, and deal with the consequences (sharply weaked Nato) or we commit my daughter and a hundred thousand or so more sons & daughters back into the fray. All because you won the argument that we had no business helping Ukraine.

Everything I've posted is plainly known/seen to anyone with a basic knowledge of "the area" and "the business." EVERYTHING Putin has said and done for 25 years has been dedicated to that goal....the goal of getting all the former WP nations out of Nato. The main reason we haven't stopped him yet? The argument of ripeness: Oh, Russia is paper tiger. Look how hard they had to work to subdue Gozny, they said. The faulty premise with that line of reasoning is that the Russian battle plan illustrates weakness. In fact, it's the opposite. Such a plan is just the Russian MO. "We will take what we want and we don't care how many people we kill on either side, how many lives we destroy on either side, how much economic destruction we inflict on either side. If we want it, we want it worse than you and we will happily outbleed you, no matter how long it takes." That reasoning sounds hollow. Unless Russia is your neighbor.

We know that Russia ideologically rejects classical liberalism and democracy, seeing them as threats to the Russian way of life. We know Putin has repeatedly stated about return of Russian hegemony over the entire USSR footprint. Look what he's actually done about it. Consistently. A predictable as sunshine in the morning. How on earth could anyone possibly think Ukraine will satisfy them?

As long as there is a single Ukrainian willing to die for his country, we should make sure he/she never fails for lack of arms & ammo. Every day of battle degrades the Russian war machine. Every day of battle pushes out into the future the time it will take Russia to rebuild. It is borderline madness to cut off the military supply lines to Ukraine, when the consequences are uniformly negative, short and long term, to US interests and actually significantly increase the prospects of escalation.

Your policy on Ukraine is well beyond undesirable.

---

This is why countries like Romania never should have joined NATO. The dilemma you describe is a predictable result of the policies you advocate.

---

that is a very fair point.

Unfortunately, the question is "asked & answered." The decision has been made. We have a treaty obligation to defend Romania. We can't say "oh well, we shouldn't have done that in the first place." We have to honor the obligation or.....dare I say it....we confirm Zelenskyy's press conference comments about American credibility. We balk, all of Nato is a paper tiger.

Thankfully, we have an option readily at hand to forestall that risk for several decades -- Ukrainian victory in the Donbas and Crimea.

whiterock said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

---

Of course he is. It is in his and Ukraine's best interest to add NATO to his defense. Why would anyone expect him not to play for NATO to enter the war???

It is up to NATO to set the parameters of support, not Zelinsky. He will take whatever support we will give, it is nave and foolish to expect otherwise. Don't see the point of Wolfe's tweet besides dramatic effect.

---

Zelensky is saying that it will absolutely happen, not that it's on the table as an option.

---

Exactly.

Ukraine can push, publicly and privately, all it wants to for Nato membership. And such will have an impact on it's foreign relationships.

NATO is not obligated by any of that. Nor has NATO made any promises. NATO is doing what NATO should, exercising strategic ambiguity....not clearly indicating whether it will or will not admit Ukraine. That complicates Russian calculations.

I don't see a likely scenario for Ukraine entering Nato. Major issues: such would ratify the Russian excuse for the war in the first place, such would put MORE Russian/Nato divisions stationed across borders from each other, such would have opposition from Nato members. I would assess Turkey as a hard NO to Ukrainian membership. Crimea and much of southern Ukraine was once either integral or vassal to the Ottoman Empire. A weak, independent Ukrainian state is far more useful to Turkey than a peer state within Nato that could count on Article 5 protections.

The forces driving this war are as old as time. Turkey, if one were to spend all night drinking raki with Erdogan, has not given up on the romantic notion of one day returning those lands to a regime enforcing sharia law, as a protectorate of Turkey. That such is impossible in any practical scenario one could devise does not mean that such romance would not have influence over policy today.

I would be extremely reluctant to admit Ukraine to NATO. Would not close the door, but would want to see a couple decades to assess the stability of the Ukrainian society. By contrast, an independent Ukraine counting on partner status with Nato is a manageable scenario with limited short-term downside. A Ukrainian state careening between pro-West and pro-Russian factions is only a problem if that state is already a NATO ally. Nato has never had a scenario where undemocratic actions inside a member state has threatened to fracture the alliance. We should not court such a scenario by admitting unstable partners, particularly not when Russian armies are waiting to come to the aid of a country that has undemocratically chosen to withraw from Nato. The problems are myriad: Do we attack a Nato state to return them to an alliance? Do we invoke Article 5 on behalf of a regime in exile to fight to expel Russian troops from a Nato state which has invited them in? We did that in WWII. Do we do it today? Hard choices. Which are best avoided by winning the current conflict.

the size of Nato makes in virtually invulnerable to military attack.
the size of Nato makes it HIGHLY vulnerable to 5th column actions.

Ergo the need to keep Russian armies in Russia.......

---

Ukraine can join NATO under 1 and only 1 condition….they need total victory in their war versus Russia.

Why?

Because Russia needs to be humiliated. Russia needs a face check in modern global affairs both politically and economically. Russia needs to understand that its long suffering, mafioso tactics have no business in an integrated world. That expansion by force is not a policy. That screaming Nazi at people you don't like (but oh so desperately want their land and for them to be integrated into your nation once you take it) is not a way of life, especially when you're acting as the Nazi in this scenario.

Then, and only then, can Ukraine be a part of NATO, because it won't matter if they're in nato anymore once Russia decides they don't want to be the heel

whiterock said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

I won't abandon Sanity.

I won't lie to sell my position.

I won't ignore the deaths of innocents in the name of politics.

Some here have done so, it appears.

---

You also won't identify how letting Russia annex all/part of Ukraine is preferable to the current situation.

---

Since I oppose Putin's invasion, of course I do not consider that acceptable. Have you ignored all my prior posts?

---

The peace argument for this war is quite weaker than most.

Putin's policy is quite clear, consistent, in both statement and deed. He is going to keep coming westward, with columns armored and fifth, until the Baltics, Poland, Slovakia, Hungary, and Romania are no longer members in Nato. The only question is time...

---

Come on...you can not possibly know that.

Not to mention any invasion, attack, aggression against any NATO state means war with the USA-UK-France-Germany.

Russia of course would be wiped out in such a war.

There is no rational world were we see Russian troop watering their horses in the Danube river.

This statement of "we must stop Russia in Donbas (where the people are ethnic Russians) before they reach Poland or Hungary" is just classic pro-war propaganda.

Hungary (long under the Soviet boot) is the lone voice of peace out there in Europe right now. They are not afraid that Russia is going to come for them next.

If the Hungarians are not afraid why should beltway boomers in D.C. be afraid?

If anything this war against Ukraine as given NATO a new lease on life.

---

How can you possibly ignore that? Beyond the patent weak-man argument of the remaining post, to suggest that we cannot make sound assessments, given Russian intentions and capabilities and MO, shows profound lack of understanding of history and foreign affairs.

Here's a scenario: Ukraine falls. Russia annexes everything east of the Dnieper, and the Ukrainian coast all the way to the Romanian and Moldovan borders. That was the manifest intent of their invasion. If/when that happens, the implications are:
1) Russia now has a supply chain to Transnistria, where a Donbas-type insurgency is underway as we argue. The ability to directly supply the Russian separatists by land means Russia effectively owns Moldova, given the relative size of Transnistria to the Moldovan state. Moldova cannot stop Russia. It immediately becomes a Russian puppet state, unless the West responds with support for the existing government, creating exactly the same dynamic as developed in Ukraine 2010-2022. How far will it go? What are you going to do? Are you going to let it happen? How does another Russian puppet state further US policy interests?
2) The rump Ukrainian state would remain - Lvov and Kiev. What is your policy? Do we just back off and let it go the way of Belarus? Or do we replay the same game we've played in Ukraine since 2014, only with a sharply weaker hand? Why on earth would we chose that option when we have a better one today?
3) Russian armies are currently encamped on 4 Nato borders (Poland, Baltics). If the Ukrainian rump state becomes Belarus 2.0, that number rises to 7. Each one of those seven states are functioning participatory democracies. How will Russian armies on their border impact politics? Will it stiffen their resolve (ala Poland), or will it weaken it (Hungary). For sure, it will not have "no effect." Will Russian efforts to influence their elections be enhanced by their control over Ukraine and Modlova?
4) In democracies, the pendulum swings. Current regimes will be replaced. Usually, that will be by parties with different ideas. How long before we see a party with softly or harshly anti-Nato or even pro-Russian policies swing to power? Wouldn't that increase the possibility of another Maidan crisis? For sure it increases the number of countries in which such could happen to 7 instead of 3.
5) So, you are SecState. All of the above has happened. (the course is certain, if we lose in Ukraine, only the timeline is in question). One odd morning before coffee, you get the phone call from your COS that the Romanian Army has just surrounded key government buildings in Bucharest. Some general you don't remember meeting is making an announcement that new elections will be held in 90 days. What do you do?

The answer is: the very first thing you do is kick yourself in the ass for a few minutes for not stopping Russia in the Donbas.

Because, now, you have to worry about that general announcing a withdrawal from Nato. You have to worry about Russia effectively controlling elections held by the Romanan military, almost certainly electing a pro-Russian government that will announce a withdrawal from Nato. What do you do when each of those things happen? Complicating things, there will likely be an exiled Romanian regime encamped somewhere demanding Article 5 protections. (serious implications follow). Do we invade a Nato member to restore an exiled regime? Remember, how you respond will be watched with somewhat more than passing interest in Budapest, Warsaw, Bratislava, Tallin, Riga, and Vilnius. We would have no proxy to fight for us. it's a Manichean option - we either let it happen, and deal with the consequences (sharply weaked Nato) or we commit my daughter and a hundred thousand or so more sons & daughters back into the fray. All because you won the argument that we had no business helping Ukraine.

Everything I've posted is plainly known/seen to anyone with a basic knowledge of "the area" and "the business." EVERYTHING Putin has said and done for 25 years has been dedicated to that goal....the goal of getting all the former WP nations out of Nato. The main reason we haven't stopped him yet? The argument of ripeness: Oh, Russia is paper tiger. Look how hard they had to work to subdue Gozny, they said. The faulty premise with that line of reasoning is that the Russian battle plan illustrates weakness. In fact, it's the opposite. Such a plan is just the Russian MO. "We will take what we want and we don't care how many people we kill on either side, how many lives we destroy on either side, how much economic destruction we inflict on either side. If we want it, we want it worse than you and we will happily outbleed you, no matter how long it takes." That reasoning sounds hollow. Unless Russia is your neighbor.

We know that Russia ideologically rejects classical liberalism and democracy, seeing them as threats to the Russian way of life. We know Putin has repeatedly stated about return of Russian hegemony over the entire USSR footprint. Look what he's actually done about it. Consistently. A predictable as sunshine in the morning. How on earth could anyone possibly think Ukraine will satisfy them?

As long as there is a single Ukrainian willing to die for his country, we should make sure he/she never fails for lack of arms & ammo. Every day of battle degrades the Russian war machine. Every day of battle pushes out into the future the time it will take Russia to rebuild. It is borderline madness to cut off the military supply lines to Ukraine, when the consequences are uniformly negative, short and long term, to US interests and actually significantly increase the prospects of escalation.

Your policy on Ukraine is well beyond undesirable.

---

This is why countries like Romania never should have joined NATO. The dilemma you describe is a predictable result of the policies you advocate.

---

that is a very fair point.

Unfortunately, the question is "asked & answered." The decision has been made. We have a treaty obligation to defend Romania. We can't say "oh well, we shouldn't have done that in the first place." We have to honor the obligation or.....dare I say it....we confirm Zelenskyy's press conference comments about American credibility. We balk, all of Nato is a paper tiger.

---

Sure, but we're talking about two different things now. We can defend Romania if we have to. That doesn't mean our policy needs to revolve around keeping Romania in NATO. It's not as if they bring much to the table in terms of strengthening the alliance. Strategically they're one of its weakest points, along with the Baltic states.

Sam Lowry said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

I won't abandon Sanity.

I won't lie to sell my position.

I won't ignore the deaths of innocents in the name of politics.

Some here have done so, it appears.

---

You also won't identify how letting Russia annex all/part of Ukraine is preferable to the current situation.

---

Since I oppose Putin's invasion, of course I do not consider that acceptable. Have you ignored all my prior posts?

---

The peace argument for this war is quite weaker than most.

Putin's policy is quite clear, consistent, in both statement and deed. He is going to keep coming westward, with columns armored and fifth, until the Baltics, Poland, Slovakia, Hungary, and Romania are no longer members in Nato. The only question is time...

---

Come on...you can not possibly know that.

Not to mention any invasion, attack, aggression against any NATO state means war with the USA-UK-France-Germany.

Russia of course would be wiped out in such a war.

There is no rational world were we see Russian troop watering their horses in the Danube river.

This statement of "we must stop Russia in Donbas (where the people are ethnic Russians) before they reach Poland or Hungary" is just classic pro-war propaganda.

Hungary (long under the Soviet boot) is the lone voice of peace out there in Europe right now. They are not afraid that Russia is going to come for them next.

If the Hungarians are not afraid why should beltway boomers in D.C. be afraid?

If anything this war against Ukraine as given NATO a new lease on life.

---

How can you possibly ignore that? Beyond the patent weak-man argument of the remaining post, to suggest that we cannot make sound assessments, given Russian intentions and capabilities and MO, shows profound lack of understanding of history and foreign affairs.

Here's a scenario: Ukraine falls. Russia annexes everything east of the Dnieper, and the Ukrainian coast all the way to the Romanian and Moldovan borders. That was the manifest intent of their invasion. If/when that happens, the implications are:
1) Russia now has a supply chain to Transnistria, where a Donbas-type insurgency is underway as we argue. The ability to directly supply the Russian separatists by land means Russia effectively owns Moldova, given the relative size of Transnistria to the Moldovan state. Moldova cannot stop Russia. It immediately becomes a Russian puppet state, unless the West responds with support for the existing government, creating exactly the same dynamic as developed in Ukraine 2010-2022. How far will it go? What are you going to do? Are you going to let it happen? How does another Russian puppet state further US policy interests?
2) The rump Ukrainian state would remain - Lvov and Kiev. What is your policy? Do we just back off and let it go the way of Belarus? Or do we replay the same game we've played in Ukraine since 2014, only with a sharply weaker hand? Why on earth would we chose that option when we have a better one today?
3) Russian armies are currently encamped on 4 Nato borders (Poland, Baltics). If the Ukrainian rump state becomes Belarus 2.0, that number rises to 7. Each one of those seven states are functioning participatory democracies. How will Russian armies on their border impact politics? Will it stiffen their resolve (ala Poland), or will it weaken it (Hungary). For sure, it will not have "no effect." Will Russian efforts to influence their elections be enhanced by their control over Ukraine and Modlova?
4) In democracies, the pendulum swings. Current regimes will be replaced. Usually, that will be by parties with different ideas. How long before we see a party with softly or harshly anti-Nato or even pro-Russian policies swing to power? Wouldn't that increase the possibility of another Maidan crisis? For sure it increases the number of countries in which such could happen to 7 instead of 3.
5) So, you are SecState. All of the above has happened. (the course is certain, if we lose in Ukraine, only the timeline is in question). One odd morning before coffee, you get the phone call from your COS that the Romanian Army has just surrounded key government buildings in Bucharest. Some general you don't remember meeting is making an announcement that new elections will be held in 90 days. What do you do?

The answer is: the very first thing you do is kick yourself in the ass for a few minutes for not stopping Russia in the Donbas.

Because, now, you have to worry about that general announcing a withdrawal from Nato. You have to worry about Russia effectively controlling elections held by the Romanan military, almost certainly electing a pro-Russian government that will announce a withdrawal from Nato. What do you do when each of those things happen? Complicating things, there will likely be an exiled Romanian regime encamped somewhere demanding Article 5 protections. (serious implications follow). Do we invade a Nato member to restore an exiled regime? Remember, how you respond will be watched with somewhat more than passing interest in Budapest, Warsaw, Bratislava, Tallin, Riga, and Vilnius. We would have no proxy to fight for us. it's a Manichean option - we either let it happen, and deal with the consequences (sharply weaked Nato) or we commit my daughter and a hundred thousand or so more sons & daughters back into the fray. All because you won the argument that we had no business helping Ukraine.

Everything I've posted is plainly known/seen to anyone with a basic knowledge of "the area" and "the business." EVERYTHING Putin has said and done for 25 years has been dedicated to that goal....the goal of getting all the former WP nations out of Nato. The main reason we haven't stopped him yet? The argument of ripeness: Oh, Russia is paper tiger. Look how hard they had to work to subdue Gozny, they said. The faulty premise with that line of reasoning is that the Russian battle plan illustrates weakness. In fact, it's the opposite. Such a plan is just the Russian MO. "We will take what we want and we don't care how many people we kill on either side, how many lives we destroy on either side, how much economic destruction we inflict on either side. If we want it, we want it worse than you and we will happily outbleed you, no matter how long it takes." That reasoning sounds hollow. Unless Russia is your neighbor.

We know that Russia ideologically rejects classical liberalism and democracy, seeing them as threats to the Russian way of life. We know Putin has repeatedly stated about return of Russian hegemony over the entire USSR footprint. Look what he's actually done about it. Consistently. A predictable as sunshine in the morning. How on earth could anyone possibly think Ukraine will satisfy them?

As long as there is a single Ukrainian willing to die for his country, we should make sure he/she never fails for lack of arms & ammo. Every day of battle degrades the Russian war machine. Every day of battle pushes out into the future the time it will take Russia to rebuild. It is borderline madness to cut off the military supply lines to Ukraine, when the consequences are uniformly negative, short and long term, to US interests and actually significantly increase the prospects of escalation.

Your policy on Ukraine is well beyond undesirable.

---

This is why countries like Romania never should have joined NATO. The dilemma you describe is a predictable result of the policies you advocate.

---

that is a very fair point.

Unfortunately, the question is "asked & answered." The decision has been made. We have a treaty obligation to defend Romania. We can't say "oh well, we shouldn't have done that in the first place." We have to honor the obligation or.....dare I say it....we confirm Zelenskyy's press conference comments about American credibility. We balk, all of Nato is a paper tiger.

---

Sure, but we're talking about two different things now. We can defend Romania if we have to. That doesn't mean our policy needs to revolve around keeping Romania in NATO. It's not as if they bring much to the table in terms of strengthening the alliance. Strategically they're one of its weakest points, along with the Baltic states.

---

Yea there are lots of good articles out there about how the expansions of 2004 brought in a lot of poor countries that don't make good NATO partners to begin with....more liabilities than assets.

Obviously the expansion in 1999 that brought in Poland, Czechia, Hungary was a decent play. Poland especially is very geo-strategically important.

The 2004 expansion antagonized Russia and was certainly not necessary. Brought in a bunch of duds like Bulgaria, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Romania. Poor countries than can not defend themselves or really contribute much of anything to NATO defense.

Poland leaving NATO would be a blow. Latvia leaving would probably be a net benefit in truth.

Redbrickbear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

I won't abandon Sanity.

I won't lie to sell my position.

I won't ignore the deaths of innocents in the name of politics.

Some here have done so, it appears.

---

You also won't identify how letting Russia annex all/part of Ukraine is preferable to the current situation.

---

Since I oppose Putin's invasion, of course I do not consider that acceptable. Have you ignored all my prior posts?

---

The peace argument for this war is quite weaker than most.

Putin's policy is quite clear, consistent, in both statement and deed. He is going to keep coming westward, with columns armored and fifth, until the Baltics, Poland, Slovakia, Hungary, and Romania are no longer members in Nato. The only question is time...

---

Come on...you can not possibly know that.

Not to mention any invasion, attack, aggression against any NATO state means war with the USA-UK-France-Germany.

Russia of course would be wiped out in such a war.

There is no rational world were we see Russian troop watering their horses in the Danube river.

This statement of "we must stop Russia in Donbas (where the people are ethnic Russians) before they reach Poland or Hungary" is just classic pro-war propaganda.

Hungary (long under the Soviet boot) is the lone voice of peace out there in Europe right now. They are not afraid that Russia is going to come for them next.

If the Hungarians are not afraid why should beltway boomers in D.C. be afraid?

If anything this war against Ukraine as given NATO a new lease on life.

---

How can you possibly ignore that? Beyond the patent weak-man argument of the remaining post, to suggest that we cannot make sound assessments, given Russian intentions and capabilities and MO, shows profound lack of understanding of history and foreign affairs.

Here's a scenario: Ukraine falls. Russia annexes everything east of the Dnieper, and the Ukrainian coast all the way to the Romanian and Moldovan borders. That was the manifest intent of their invasion. If/when that happens, the implications are:
1) Russia now has a supply chain to Transnistria, where a Donbas-type insurgency is underway as we argue. The ability to directly supply the Russian separatists by land means Russia effectively owns Moldova, given the relative size of Transnistria to the Moldovan state. Moldova cannot stop Russia. It immediately becomes a Russian puppet state, unless the West responds with support for the existing government, creating exactly the same dynamic as developed in Ukraine 2010-2022. How far will it go? What are you going to do? Are you going to let it happen? How does another Russian puppet state further US policy interests?
2) The rump Ukrainian state would remain - Lvov and Kiev. What is your policy? Do we just back off and let it go the way of Belarus? Or do we replay the same game we've played in Ukraine since 2014, only with a sharply weaker hand? Why on earth would we chose that option when we have a better one today?
3) Russian armies are currently encamped on 4 Nato borders (Poland, Baltics). If the Ukrainian rump state becomes Belarus 2.0, that number rises to 7. Each one of those seven states are functioning participatory democracies. How will Russian armies on their border impact politics? Will it stiffen their resolve (ala Poland), or will it weaken it (Hungary). For sure, it will not have "no effect." Will Russian efforts to influence their elections be enhanced by their control over Ukraine and Modlova?
4) In democracies, the pendulum swings. Current regimes will be replaced. Usually, that will be by parties with different ideas. How long before we see a party with softly or harshly anti-Nato or even pro-Russian policies swing to power? Wouldn't that increase the possibility of another Maidan crisis? For sure it increases the number of countries in which such could happen to 7 instead of 3.
5) So, you are SecState. All of the above has happened. (the course is certain, if we lose in Ukraine, only the timeline is in question). One odd morning before coffee, you get the phone call from your COS that the Romanian Army has just surrounded key government buildings in Bucharest. Some general you don't remember meeting is making an announcement that new elections will be held in 90 days. What do you do?

The answer is: the very first thing you do is kick yourself in the ass for a few minutes for not stopping Russia in the Donbas.

Because, now, you have to worry about that general announcing a withdrawal from Nato. You have to worry about Russia effectively controlling elections held by the Romanan military, almost certainly electing a pro-Russian government that will announce a withdrawal from Nato. What do you do when each of those things happen? Complicating things, there will likely be an exiled Romanian regime encamped somewhere demanding Article 5 protections. (serious implications follow). Do we invade a Nato member to restore an exiled regime? Remember, how you respond will be watched with somewhat more than passing interest in Budapest, Warsaw, Bratislava, Tallin, Riga, and Vilnius. We would have no proxy to fight for us. it's a Manichean option - we either let it happen, and deal with the consequences (sharply weaked Nato) or we commit my daughter and a hundred thousand or so more sons & daughters back into the fray. All because you won the argument that we had no business helping Ukraine.

Everything I've posted is plainly known/seen to anyone with a basic knowledge of "the area" and "the business." EVERYTHING Putin has said and done for 25 years has been dedicated to that goal....the goal of getting all the former WP nations out of Nato. The main reason we haven't stopped him yet? The argument of ripeness: Oh, Russia is paper tiger. Look how hard they had to work to subdue Gozny, they said. The faulty premise with that line of reasoning is that the Russian battle plan illustrates weakness. In fact, it's the opposite. Such a plan is just the Russian MO. "We will take what we want and we don't care how many people we kill on either side, how many lives we destroy on either side, how much economic destruction we inflict on either side. If we want it, we want it worse than you and we will happily outbleed you, no matter how long it takes." That reasoning sounds hollow. Unless Russia is your neighbor.

We know that Russia ideologically rejects classical liberalism and democracy, seeing them as threats to the Russian way of life. We know Putin has repeatedly stated about return of Russian hegemony over the entire USSR footprint. Look what he's actually done about it. Consistently. A predictable as sunshine in the morning. How on earth could anyone possibly think Ukraine will satisfy them?

As long as there is a single Ukrainian willing to die for his country, we should make sure he/she never fails for lack of arms & ammo. Every day of battle degrades the Russian war machine. Every day of battle pushes out into the future the time it will take Russia to rebuild. It is borderline madness to cut off the military supply lines to Ukraine, when the consequences are uniformly negative, short and long term, to US interests and actually significantly increase the prospects of escalation.

Your policy on Ukraine is well beyond undesirable.

---

This is why countries like Romania never should have joined NATO. The dilemma you describe is a predictable result of the policies you advocate.

---

that is a very fair point.

Unfortunately, the question is "asked & answered." The decision has been made. We have a treaty obligation to defend Romania. We can't say "oh well, we shouldn't have done that in the first place." We have to honor the obligation or.....dare I say it....we confirm Zelenskyy's press conference comments about American credibility. We balk, all of Nato is a paper tiger.

---

Sure, but we're talking about two different things now. We can defend Romania if we have to. That doesn't mean our policy needs to revolve around keeping Romania in NATO. It's not as if they bring much to the table in terms of strengthening the alliance. Strategically they're one of its weakest points, along with the Baltic states.

---

Yea there are lots of good articles out there about how the expansions of 2004 brought in a lot of poor countries that don't make good NATO partners to begin with....more liabilities than assets.

Obviously the expansion in 1999 that brought in Poland, Czechia, Hungary was a decent play. Poland especially is very geo-strategically important.

The 2004 expansion antagonized Russia and was certainly not necessary. Brought in a bunch of duds like Bulgaria, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Romania. Poor countries than can not defend themselves or really contribute much of anything to NATO defense.

Poland leaving NATO would be a blow. Latvia leaving would probably be a net benefit in truth.

---

Yep, expanding NATO has provoked our opponent and weakened our own position at the same time. And the next step is to do more of the same. Brilliant bit of strategy, isn't it?

Sam Lowry said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

I won't abandon Sanity.

I won't lie to sell my position.

I won't ignore the deaths of innocents in the name of politics.

Some here have done so, it appears.

---

You also won't identify how letting Russia annex all/part of Ukraine is preferable to the current situation.

---

Since I oppose Putin's invasion, of course I do not consider that acceptable. Have you ignored all my prior posts?

---

The peace argument for this war is quite weaker than most.

Putin's policy is quite clear, consistent, in both statement and deed. He is going to keep coming westward, with columns armored and fifth, until the Baltics, Poland, Slovakia, Hungary, and Romania are no longer members in Nato. The only question is time...

---

Come on...you can not possibly know that.

Not to mention any invasion, attack, aggression against any NATO state means war with the USA-UK-France-Germany.

Russia of course would be wiped out in such a war.

There is no rational world were we see Russian troop watering their horses in the Danube river.

This statement of "we must stop Russia in Donbas (where the people are ethnic Russians) before they reach Poland or Hungary" is just classic pro-war propaganda.

Hungary (long under the Soviet boot) is the lone voice of peace out there in Europe right now. They are not afraid that Russia is going to come for them next.

If the Hungarians are not afraid why should beltway boomers in D.C. be afraid?

If anything this war against Ukraine as given NATO a new lease on life.

---

How can you possibly ignore that? Beyond the patent weak-man argument of the remaining post, to suggest that we cannot make sound assessments, given Russian intentions and capabilities and MO, shows profound lack of understanding of history and foreign affairs.

Here's a scenario: Ukraine falls. Russia annexes everything east of the Dnieper, and the Ukrainian coast all the way to the Romanian and Moldovan borders. That was the manifest intent of their invasion. If/when that happens, the implications are:
1) Russia now has a supply chain to Transnistria, where a Donbas-type insurgency is underway as we argue. The ability to directly supply the Russian separatists by land means Russia effectively owns Moldova, given the relative size of Transnistria to the Moldovan state. Moldova cannot stop Russia. It immediately becomes a Russian puppet state, unless the West responds with support for the existing government, creating exactly the same dynamic as developed in Ukraine 2010-2022. How far will it go? What are you going to do? Are you going to let it happen? How does another Russian puppet state further US policy interests?
2) The rump Ukrainian state would remain - Lvov and Kiev. What is your policy? Do we just back off and let it go the way of Belarus? Or do we replay the same game we've played in Ukraine since 2014, only with a sharply weaker hand? Why on earth would we chose that option when we have a better one today?
3) Russian armies are currently encamped on 4 Nato borders (Poland, Baltics). If the Ukrainian rump state becomes Belarus 2.0, that number rises to 7. Each one of those seven states are functioning participatory democracies. How will Russian armies on their border impact politics? Will it stiffen their resolve (ala Poland), or will it weaken it (Hungary). For sure, it will not have "no effect." Will Russian efforts to influence their elections be enhanced by their control over Ukraine and Modlova?
4) In democracies, the pendulum swings. Current regimes will be replaced. Usually, that will be by parties with different ideas. How long before we see a party with softly or harshly anti-Nato or even pro-Russian policies swing to power? Wouldn't that increase the possibility of another Maidan crisis? For sure it increases the number of countries in which such could happen to 7 instead of 3.
5) So, you are SecState. All of the above has happened. (the course is certain, if we lose in Ukraine, only the timeline is in question). One odd morning before coffee, you get the phone call from your COS that the Romanian Army has just surrounded key government buildings in Bucharest. Some general you don't remember meeting is making an announcement that new elections will be held in 90 days. What do you do?

The answer is: the very first thing you do is kick yourself in the ass for a few minutes for not stopping Russia in the Donbas.

Because, now, you have to worry about that general announcing a withdrawal from Nato. You have to worry about Russia effectively controlling elections held by the Romanan military, almost certainly electing a pro-Russian government that will announce a withdrawal from Nato. What do you do when each of those things happen? Complicating things, there will likely be an exiled Romanian regime encamped somewhere demanding Article 5 protections. (serious implications follow). Do we invade a Nato member to restore an exiled regime? Remember, how you respond will be watched with somewhat more than passing interest in Budapest, Warsaw, Bratislava, Tallin, Riga, and Vilnius. We would have no proxy to fight for us. it's a Manichean option - we either let it happen, and deal with the consequences (sharply weaked Nato) or we commit my daughter and a hundred thousand or so more sons & daughters back into the fray. All because you won the argument that we had no business helping Ukraine.

Everything I've posted is plainly known/seen to anyone with a basic knowledge of "the area" and "the business." EVERYTHING Putin has said and done for 25 years has been dedicated to that goal....the goal of getting all the former WP nations out of Nato. The main reason we haven't stopped him yet? The argument of ripeness: Oh, Russia is paper tiger. Look how hard they had to work to subdue Gozny, they said. The faulty premise with that line of reasoning is that the Russian battle plan illustrates weakness. In fact, it's the opposite. Such a plan is just the Russian MO. "We will take what we want and we don't care how many people we kill on either side, how many lives we destroy on either side, how much economic destruction we inflict on either side. If we want it, we want it worse than you and we will happily outbleed you, no matter how long it takes." That reasoning sounds hollow. Unless Russia is your neighbor.

We know that Russia ideologically rejects classical liberalism and democracy, seeing them as threats to the Russian way of life. We know Putin has repeatedly stated about return of Russian hegemony over the entire USSR footprint. Look what he's actually done about it. Consistently. A predictable as sunshine in the morning. How on earth could anyone possibly think Ukraine will satisfy them?

As long as there is a single Ukrainian willing to die for his country, we should make sure he/she never fails for lack of arms & ammo. Every day of battle degrades the Russian war machine. Every day of battle pushes out into the future the time it will take Russia to rebuild. It is borderline madness to cut off the military supply lines to Ukraine, when the consequences are uniformly negative, short and long term, to US interests and actually significantly increase the prospects of escalation.

Your policy on Ukraine is well beyond undesirable.

---

This is why countries like Romania never should have joined NATO. The dilemma you describe is a predictable result of the policies you advocate.

---

that is a very fair point.

Unfortunately, the question is "asked & answered." The decision has been made. We have a treaty obligation to defend Romania. We can't say "oh well, we shouldn't have done that in the first place." We have to honor the obligation or.....dare I say it....we confirm Zelenskyy's press conference comments about American credibility. We balk, all of Nato is a paper tiger.

---

Sure, but we're talking about two different things now. We can defend Romania if we have to. That doesn't mean our policy needs to revolve around keeping Romania in NATO. It's not as if they bring much to the table in terms of strengthening the alliance. Strategically they're one of its weakest points, along with the Baltic states.

---

Yea there are lots of good articles out there about how the expansions of 2004 brought in a lot of poor countries that don't make good NATO partners to begin with....more liabilities than assets.

Obviously the expansion in 1999 that brought in Poland, Czechia, Hungary was a decent play. Poland especially is very geo-strategically important.

The 2004 expansion antagonized Russia and was certainly not necessary. Brought in a bunch of duds like Bulgaria, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Romania. Poor countries than can not defend themselves or really contribute much of anything to NATO defense.

Poland leaving NATO would be a blow. Latvia leaving would probably be a net benefit in truth.

---

Yep, expanding NATO has provoked our opponent and weakened our own position at the same time. And the next step is to do more of the same. Brilliant bit of strategy, isn't it?

---

Probably comes down to what is the real purpose of NATO?

Is it to defend us (the USA) from Russia and our key friends and trade partners in central and Western Europe? Western Europe of course being where all the money is.

Or is the purpose of NATO to ultimately strangle Russia?

If its just to defend ourselves and our allies then the expansions in 1999 and 2004 were enough for that forever. By 2004 all the major players in Europe were in NATO and Russia was left with just Belarus and Ukraine.

Russia was left with no feasible means to threaten any NATO country and was (and is) at a massive disadvantage in man power, weapons, and economics.

Sam Lowry said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

I won't abandon Sanity.

I won't lie to sell my position.

I won't ignore the deaths of innocents in the name of politics.

Some here have done so, it appears.

---

You also won't identify how letting Russia annex all/part of Ukraine is preferable to the current situation.

---

Since I oppose Putin's invasion, of course I do not consider that acceptable. Have you ignored all my prior posts?

---

The peace argument for this war is quite weaker than most.

Putin's policy is quite clear, consistent, in both statement and deed. He is going to keep coming westward, with columns armored and fifth, until the Baltics, Poland, Slovakia, Hungary, and Romania are no longer members in Nato. The only question is time...

---

Come on...you can not possibly know that.

Not to mention any invasion, attack, aggression against any NATO state means war with the USA-UK-France-Germany.

Russia of course would be wiped out in such a war.

There is no rational world were we see Russian troop watering their horses in the Danube river.

This statement of "we must stop Russia in Donbas (where the people are ethnic Russians) before they reach Poland or Hungary" is just classic pro-war propaganda.

Hungary (long under the Soviet boot) is the lone voice of peace out there in Europe right now. They are not afraid that Russia is going to come for them next.

If the Hungarians are not afraid why should beltway boomers in D.C. be afraid?

If anything this war against Ukraine as given NATO a new lease on life.

---

How can you possibly ignore that? Beyond the patent weak-man argument of the remaining post, to suggest that we cannot make sound assessments, given Russian intentions and capabilities and MO, shows profound lack of understanding of history and foreign affairs.

Here's a scenario: Ukraine falls. Russia annexes everything east of the Dnieper, and the Ukrainian coast all the way to the Romanian and Moldovan borders. That was the manifest intent of their invasion. If/when that happens, the implications are:
1) Russia now has a supply chain to Transnistria, where a Donbas-type insurgency is underway as we argue. The ability to directly supply the Russian separatists by land means Russia effectively owns Moldova, given the relative size of Transnistria to the Moldovan state. Moldova cannot stop Russia. It immediately becomes a Russian puppet state, unless the West responds with support for the existing government, creating exactly the same dynamic as developed in Ukraine 2010-2022. How far will it go? What are you going to do? Are you going to let it happen? How does another Russian puppet state further US policy interests?
2) The rump Ukrainian state would remain - Lvov and Kiev. What is your policy? Do we just back off and let it go the way of Belarus? Or do we replay the same game we've played in Ukraine since 2014, only with a sharply weaker hand? Why on earth would we chose that option when we have a better one today?
3) Russian armies are currently encamped on 4 Nato borders (Poland, Baltics). If the Ukrainian rump state becomes Belarus 2.0, that number rises to 7. Each one of those seven states are functioning participatory democracies. How will Russian armies on their border impact politics? Will it stiffen their resolve (ala Poland), or will it weaken it (Hungary). For sure, it will not have "no effect." Will Russian efforts to influence their elections be enhanced by their control over Ukraine and Modlova?
4) In democracies, the pendulum swings. Current regimes will be replaced. Usually, that will be by parties with different ideas. How long before we see a party with softly or harshly anti-Nato or even pro-Russian policies swing to power? Wouldn't that increase the possibility of another Maidan crisis? For sure it increases the number of countries in which such could happen to 7 instead of 3.
5) So, you are SecState. All of the above has happened. (the course is certain, if we lose in Ukraine, only the timeline is in question). One odd morning before coffee, you get the phone call from your COS that the Romanian Army has just surrounded key government buildings in Bucharest. Some general you don't remember meeting is making an announcement that new elections will be held in 90 days. What do you do?

The answer is: the very first thing you do is kick yourself in the ass for a few minutes for not stopping Russia in the Donbas.

Because, now, you have to worry about that general announcing a withdrawal from Nato. You have to worry about Russia effectively controlling elections held by the Romanan military, almost certainly electing a pro-Russian government that will announce a withdrawal from Nato. What do you do when each of those things happen? Complicating things, there will likely be an exiled Romanian regime encamped somewhere demanding Article 5 protections. (serious implications follow). Do we invade a Nato member to restore an exiled regime? Remember, how you respond will be watched with somewhat more than passing interest in Budapest, Warsaw, Bratislava, Tallin, Riga, and Vilnius. We would have no proxy to fight for us. it's a Manichean option - we either let it happen, and deal with the consequences (sharply weaked Nato) or we commit my daughter and a hundred thousand or so more sons & daughters back into the fray. All because you won the argument that we had no business helping Ukraine.

Everything I've posted is plainly known/seen to anyone with a basic knowledge of "the area" and "the business." EVERYTHING Putin has said and done for 25 years has been dedicated to that goal....the goal of getting all the former WP nations out of Nato. The main reason we haven't stopped him yet? The argument of ripeness: Oh, Russia is paper tiger. Look how hard they had to work to subdue Gozny, they said. The faulty premise with that line of reasoning is that the Russian battle plan illustrates weakness. In fact, it's the opposite. Such a plan is just the Russian MO. "We will take what we want and we don't care how many people we kill on either side, how many lives we destroy on either side, how much economic destruction we inflict on either side. If we want it, we want it worse than you and we will happily outbleed you, no matter how long it takes." That reasoning sounds hollow. Unless Russia is your neighbor.

We know that Russia ideologically rejects classical liberalism and democracy, seeing them as threats to the Russian way of life. We know Putin has repeatedly stated about return of Russian hegemony over the entire USSR footprint. Look what he's actually done about it. Consistently. A predictable as sunshine in the morning. How on earth could anyone possibly think Ukraine will satisfy them?

As long as there is a single Ukrainian willing to die for his country, we should make sure he/she never fails for lack of arms & ammo. Every day of battle degrades the Russian war machine. Every day of battle pushes out into the future the time it will take Russia to rebuild. It is borderline madness to cut off the military supply lines to Ukraine, when the consequences are uniformly negative, short and long term, to US interests and actually significantly increase the prospects of escalation.

Your policy on Ukraine is well beyond undesirable.

---

This is why countries like Romania never should have joined NATO. The dilemma you describe is a predictable result of the policies you advocate.

---

that is a very fair point.

Unfortunately, the question is "asked & answered." The decision has been made. We have a treaty obligation to defend Romania. We can't say "oh well, we shouldn't have done that in the first place." We have to honor the obligation or.....dare I say it....we confirm Zelenskyy's press conference comments about American credibility. We balk, all of Nato is a paper tiger.

---

Sure, but we're talking about two different things now. We can defend Romania if we have to. That doesn't mean our policy needs to revolve around keeping Romania in NATO. It's not as if they bring much to the table in terms of strengthening the alliance. Strategically they're one of its weakest points, along with the Baltic states.

---

yes, but....

A) have we ever had a departure from Nato?
and
B) how that departure happens is a very important thing.
and
C) any departure is a loss for the alliance. A Russian client state in Romania opens up the slavic parts of the Balkans to Donbas/Transnistria type nonense, which proliferates problems for all the remaining members.
and
D) see above about avoiding all that by just winning the damned proxy war we're in right now.

There is no upside to not winning.......

whiterock said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

I won't abandon Sanity.

I won't lie to sell my position.

I won't ignore the deaths of innocents in the name of politics.

Some here have done so, it appears.

---

You also won't identify how letting Russia annex all/part of Ukraine is preferable to the current situation.

---

Since I oppose Putin's invasion, of course I do not consider that acceptable. Have you ignored all my prior posts?

---

The peace argument for this war is quite weaker than most.

Putin's policy is quite clear, consistent, in both statement and deed. He is going to keep coming westward, with columns armored and fifth, until the Baltics, Poland, Slovakia, Hungary, and Romania are no longer members in Nato. The only question is time...

---

Come on...you can not possibly know that.

Not to mention any invasion, attack, aggression against any NATO state means war with the USA-UK-France-Germany.

Russia of course would be wiped out in such a war.

There is no rational world were we see Russian troop watering their horses in the Danube river.

This statement of "we must stop Russia in Donbas (where the people are ethnic Russians) before they reach Poland or Hungary" is just classic pro-war propaganda.

Hungary (long under the Soviet boot) is the lone voice of peace out there in Europe right now. They are not afraid that Russia is going to come for them next.

If the Hungarians are not afraid why should beltway boomers in D.C. be afraid?

If anything this war against Ukraine as given NATO a new lease on life.

---

How can you possibly ignore that? Beyond the patent weak-man argument of the remaining post, to suggest that we cannot make sound assessments, given Russian intentions and capabilities and MO, shows profound lack of understanding of history and foreign affairs.

Here's a scenario: Ukraine falls. Russia annexes everything east of the Dnieper, and the Ukrainian coast all the way to the Romanian and Moldovan borders. That was the manifest intent of their invasion. If/when that happens, the implications are:
1) Russia now has a supply chain to Transnistria, where a Donbas-type insurgency is underway as we argue. The ability to directly supply the Russian separatists by land means Russia effectively owns Moldova, given the relative size of Transnistria to the Moldovan state. Moldova cannot stop Russia. It immediately becomes a Russian puppet state, unless the West responds with support for the existing government, creating exactly the same dynamic as developed in Ukraine 2010-2022. How far will it go? What are you going to do? Are you going to let it happen? How does another Russian puppet state further US policy interests?
2) The rump Ukrainian state would remain - Lvov and Kiev. What is your policy? Do we just back off and let it go the way of Belarus? Or do we replay the same game we've played in Ukraine since 2014, only with a sharply weaker hand? Why on earth would we chose that option when we have a better one today?
3) Russian armies are currently encamped on 4 Nato borders (Poland, Baltics). If the Ukrainian rump state becomes Belarus 2.0, that number rises to 7. Each one of those seven states are functioning participatory democracies. How will Russian armies on their border impact politics? Will it stiffen their resolve (ala Poland), or will it weaken it (Hungary). For sure, it will not have "no effect." Will Russian efforts to influence their elections be enhanced by their control over Ukraine and Modlova?
4) In democracies, the pendulum swings. Current regimes will be replaced. Usually, that will be by parties with different ideas. How long before we see a party with softly or harshly anti-Nato or even pro-Russian policies swing to power? Wouldn't that increase the possibility of another Maidan crisis? For sure it increases the number of countries in which such could happen to 7 instead of 3.
5) So, you are SecState. All of the above has happened. (the course is certain, if we lose in Ukraine, only the timeline is in question). One odd morning before coffee, you get the phone call from your COS that the Romanian Army has just surrounded key government buildings in Bucharest. Some general you don't remember meeting is making an announcement that new elections will be held in 90 days. What do you do?

The answer is: the very first thing you do is kick yourself in the ass for a few minutes for not stopping Russia in the Donbas.

Because, now, you have to worry about that general announcing a withdrawal from Nato. You have to worry about Russia effectively controlling elections held by the Romanan military, almost certainly electing a pro-Russian government that will announce a withdrawal from Nato. What do you do when each of those things happen? Complicating things, there will likely be an exiled Romanian regime encamped somewhere demanding Article 5 protections. (serious implications follow). Do we invade a Nato member to restore an exiled regime? Remember, how you respond will be watched with somewhat more than passing interest in Budapest, Warsaw, Bratislava, Tallin, Riga, and Vilnius. We would have no proxy to fight for us. it's a Manichean option - we either let it happen, and deal with the consequences (sharply weaked Nato) or we commit my daughter and a hundred thousand or so more sons & daughters back into the fray. All because you won the argument that we had no business helping Ukraine.

Everything I've posted is plainly known/seen to anyone with a basic knowledge of "the area" and "the business." EVERYTHING Putin has said and done for 25 years has been dedicated to that goal....the goal of getting all the former WP nations out of Nato. The main reason we haven't stopped him yet? The argument of ripeness: Oh, Russia is paper tiger. Look how hard they had to work to subdue Gozny, they said. The faulty premise with that line of reasoning is that the Russian battle plan illustrates weakness. In fact, it's the opposite. Such a plan is just the Russian MO. "We will take what we want and we don't care how many people we kill on either side, how many lives we destroy on either side, how much economic destruction we inflict on either side. If we want it, we want it worse than you and we will happily outbleed you, no matter how long it takes." That reasoning sounds hollow. Unless Russia is your neighbor.

We know that Russia ideologically rejects classical liberalism and democracy, seeing them as threats to the Russian way of life. We know Putin has repeatedly stated about return of Russian hegemony over the entire USSR footprint. Look what he's actually done about it. Consistently. A predictable as sunshine in the morning. How on earth could anyone possibly think Ukraine will satisfy them?

As long as there is a single Ukrainian willing to die for his country, we should make sure he/she never fails for lack of arms & ammo. Every day of battle degrades the Russian war machine. Every day of battle pushes out into the future the time it will take Russia to rebuild. It is borderline madness to cut off the military supply lines to Ukraine, when the consequences are uniformly negative, short and long term, to US interests and actually significantly increase the prospects of escalation.

Your policy on Ukraine is well beyond undesirable.

---

This is why countries like Romania never should have joined NATO. The dilemma you describe is a predictable result of the policies you advocate.

---

that is a very fair point.

Unfortunately, the question is "asked & answered." The decision has been made. We have a treaty obligation to defend Romania. We can't say "oh well, we shouldn't have done that in the first place." We have to honor the obligation or.....dare I say it....we confirm Zelenskyy's press conference comments about American credibility. We balk, all of Nato is a paper tiger.

---

Sure, but we're talking about two different things now. We can defend Romania if we have to. That doesn't mean our policy needs to revolve around keeping Romania in NATO. It's not as if they bring much to the table in terms of strengthening the alliance. Strategically they're one of its weakest points, along with the Baltic states.

---

yes, but....

A) have we ever had a departure from Nato?
and
B) how that departure happens is a very important thing.
and
C) any departure is a loss for the alliance. A Russian client state in Romania opens up the slavic parts of the Balkans to Donbas/Transnistria type nonense, which proliferates problems for all the remaining members.
and
D) see above about avoiding all that by just winning the damned proxy war we're in right now.

There is no upside to not winning.......

---

Romania is on the Euro and deeply integrated with the EU. They also see Ukraine and want nothing to do with Russia.

They are not going anywhere.

In fact they want more NATO troops in country....for both protection and for the money service members spend.

https://www.euractiv.com/section/politics/short_news/romania-wants-increased-nato-and-us-presence-on-its-territory/

Little Ireland (5 million pop.) contributes more to the EU economy than all of Romania (pop. 19 million)

https://www.statista.com/statistics/316691/eu-budget-contributions-by-country/

They are a free rider on both the EU and NATO...and they are smart enough to realize they have a very good thing going.

whiterock said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

I won't abandon Sanity.

I won't lie to sell my position.

I won't ignore the deaths of innocents in the name of politics.

Some here have done so, it appears.

---

You also won't identify how letting Russia annex all/part of Ukraine is preferable to the current situation.

---

Since I oppose Putin's invasion, of course I do not consider that acceptable. Have you ignored all my prior posts?

---

The peace argument for this war is quite weaker than most.

Putin's policy is quite clear, consistent, in both statement and deed. He is going to keep coming westward, with columns armored and fifth, until the Baltics, Poland, Slovakia, Hungary, and Romania are no longer members in Nato. The only question is time...

---

Come on...you can not possibly know that.

Not to mention any invasion, attack, aggression against any NATO state means war with the USA-UK-France-Germany.

Russia of course would be wiped out in such a war.

There is no rational world were we see Russian troop watering their horses in the Danube river.

This statement of "we must stop Russia in Donbas (where the people are ethnic Russians) before they reach Poland or Hungary" is just classic pro-war propaganda.

Hungary (long under the Soviet boot) is the lone voice of peace out there in Europe right now. They are not afraid that Russia is going to come for them next.

If the Hungarians are not afraid why should beltway boomers in D.C. be afraid?

If anything this war against Ukraine as given NATO a new lease on life.

---

How can you possibly ignore that? Beyond the patent weak-man argument of the remaining post, to suggest that we cannot make sound assessments, given Russian intentions and capabilities and MO, shows profound lack of understanding of history and foreign affairs.

Here's a scenario: Ukraine falls. Russia annexes everything east of the Dnieper, and the Ukrainian coast all the way to the Romanian and Moldovan borders. That was the manifest intent of their invasion. If/when that happens, the implications are:
1) Russia now has a supply chain to Transnistria, where a Donbas-type insurgency is underway as we argue. The ability to directly supply the Russian separatists by land means Russia effectively owns Moldova, given the relative size of Transnistria to the Moldovan state. Moldova cannot stop Russia. It immediately becomes a Russian puppet state, unless the West responds with support for the existing government, creating exactly the same dynamic as developed in Ukraine 2010-2022. How far will it go? What are you going to do? Are you going to let it happen? How does another Russian puppet state further US policy interests?
2) The rump Ukrainian state would remain - Lvov and Kiev. What is your policy? Do we just back off and let it go the way of Belarus? Or do we replay the same game we've played in Ukraine since 2014, only with a sharply weaker hand? Why on earth would we chose that option when we have a better one today?
3) Russian armies are currently encamped on 4 Nato borders (Poland, Baltics). If the Ukrainian rump state becomes Belarus 2.0, that number rises to 7. Each one of those seven states are functioning participatory democracies. How will Russian armies on their border impact politics? Will it stiffen their resolve (ala Poland), or will it weaken it (Hungary). For sure, it will not have "no effect." Will Russian efforts to influence their elections be enhanced by their control over Ukraine and Modlova?
4) In democracies, the pendulum swings. Current regimes will be replaced. Usually, that will be by parties with different ideas. How long before we see a party with softly or harshly anti-Nato or even pro-Russian policies swing to power? Wouldn't that increase the possibility of another Maidan crisis? For sure it increases the number of countries in which such could happen to 7 instead of 3.
5) So, you are SecState. All of the above has happened. (the course is certain, if we lose in Ukraine, only the timeline is in question). One odd morning before coffee, you get the phone call from your COS that the Romanian Army has just surrounded key government buildings in Bucharest. Some general you don't remember meeting is making an announcement that new elections will be held in 90 days. What do you do?

The answer is: the very first thing you do is kick yourself in the ass for a few minutes for not stopping Russia in the Donbas.

Because, now, you have to worry about that general announcing a withdrawal from Nato. You have to worry about Russia effectively controlling elections held by the Romanan military, almost certainly electing a pro-Russian government that will announce a withdrawal from Nato. What do you do when each of those things happen? Complicating things, there will likely be an exiled Romanian regime encamped somewhere demanding Article 5 protections. (serious implications follow). Do we invade a Nato member to restore an exiled regime? Remember, how you respond will be watched with somewhat more than passing interest in Budapest, Warsaw, Bratislava, Tallin, Riga, and Vilnius. We would have no proxy to fight for us. it's a Manichean option - we either let it happen, and deal with the consequences (sharply weaked Nato) or we commit my daughter and a hundred thousand or so more sons & daughters back into the fray. All because you won the argument that we had no business helping Ukraine.

Everything I've posted is plainly known/seen to anyone with a basic knowledge of "the area" and "the business." EVERYTHING Putin has said and done for 25 years has been dedicated to that goal....the goal of getting all the former WP nations out of Nato. The main reason we haven't stopped him yet? The argument of ripeness: Oh, Russia is paper tiger. Look how hard they had to work to subdue Gozny, they said. The faulty premise with that line of reasoning is that the Russian battle plan illustrates weakness. In fact, it's the opposite. Such a plan is just the Russian MO. "We will take what we want and we don't care how many people we kill on either side, how many lives we destroy on either side, how much economic destruction we inflict on either side. If we want it, we want it worse than you and we will happily outbleed you, no matter how long it takes." That reasoning sounds hollow. Unless Russia is your neighbor.

We know that Russia ideologically rejects classical liberalism and democracy, seeing them as threats to the Russian way of life. We know Putin has repeatedly stated about return of Russian hegemony over the entire USSR footprint. Look what he's actually done about it. Consistently. A predictable as sunshine in the morning. How on earth could anyone possibly think Ukraine will satisfy them?

As long as there is a single Ukrainian willing to die for his country, we should make sure he/she never fails for lack of arms & ammo. Every day of battle degrades the Russian war machine. Every day of battle pushes out into the future the time it will take Russia to rebuild. It is borderline madness to cut off the military supply lines to Ukraine, when the consequences are uniformly negative, short and long term, to US interests and actually significantly increase the prospects of escalation.

Your policy on Ukraine is well beyond undesirable.

---

This is why countries like Romania never should have joined NATO. The dilemma you describe is a predictable result of the policies you advocate.

---

that is a very fair point.

Unfortunately, the question is "asked & answered." The decision has been made. We have a treaty obligation to defend Romania. We can't say "oh well, we shouldn't have done that in the first place." We have to honor the obligation or.....dare I say it....we confirm Zelenskyy's press conference comments about American credibility. We balk, all of Nato is a paper tiger.

---

Sure, but we're talking about two different things now. We can defend Romania if we have to. That doesn't mean our policy needs to revolve around keeping Romania in NATO. It's not as if they bring much to the table in terms of strengthening the alliance. Strategically they're one of its weakest points, along with the Baltic states.

---

yes, but....

A) have we ever had a departure from Nato?
and
B) how that departure happens is a very important thing.
and
C) any departure is a loss for the alliance. A Russian client state in Romania opens up the slavic parts of the Balkans to Donbas/Transnistria type nonense, which proliferates problems for all the remaining members.
and
D) see above about avoiding all that by just winning the damned proxy war we're in right now.

There is no upside to not winning.......

---

We've been "avoiding" war by instigating war for as long as I can remember. If our policy is that we can have client states but Russia can't, we're never going to avoid war.

Sam Lowry said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

I won't abandon Sanity.

I won't lie to sell my position.

I won't ignore the deaths of innocents in the name of politics.

Some here have done so, it appears.

---

You also won't identify how letting Russia annex all/part of Ukraine is preferable to the current situation.

---

Since I oppose Putin's invasion, of course I do not consider that acceptable. Have you ignored all my prior posts?

---

The peace argument for this war is quite weaker than most.

Putin's policy is quite clear, consistent, in both statement and deed. He is going to keep coming westward, with columns armored and fifth, until the Baltics, Poland, Slovakia, Hungary, and Romania are no longer members in Nato. The only question is time...

---

Come on...you can not possibly know that.

Not to mention any invasion, attack, aggression against any NATO state means war with the USA-UK-France-Germany.

Russia of course would be wiped out in such a war.

There is no rational world were we see Russian troop watering their horses in the Danube river.

This statement of "we must stop Russia in Donbas (where the people are ethnic Russians) before they reach Poland or Hungary" is just classic pro-war propaganda.

Hungary (long under the Soviet boot) is the lone voice of peace out there in Europe right now. They are not afraid that Russia is going to come for them next.

If the Hungarians are not afraid why should beltway boomers in D.C. be afraid?

If anything this war against Ukraine as given NATO a new lease on life.

---

How can you possibly ignore that? Beyond the patent weak-man argument of the remaining post, to suggest that we cannot make sound assessments, given Russian intentions and capabilities and MO, shows profound lack of understanding of history and foreign affairs.

Here's a scenario: Ukraine falls. Russia annexes everything east of the Dnieper, and the Ukrainian coast all the way to the Romanian and Moldovan borders. That was the manifest intent of their invasion. If/when that happens, the implications are:
1) Russia now has a supply chain to Transnistria, where a Donbas-type insurgency is underway as we argue. The ability to directly supply the Russian separatists by land means Russia effectively owns Moldova, given the relative size of Transnistria to the Moldovan state. Moldova cannot stop Russia. It immediately becomes a Russian puppet state, unless the West responds with support for the existing government, creating exactly the same dynamic as developed in Ukraine 2010-2022. How far will it go? What are you going to do? Are you going to let it happen? How does another Russian puppet state further US policy interests?
2) The rump Ukrainian state would remain - Lvov and Kiev. What is your policy? Do we just back off and let it go the way of Belarus? Or do we replay the same game we've played in Ukraine since 2014, only with a sharply weaker hand? Why on earth would we chose that option when we have a better one today?
3) Russian armies are currently encamped on 4 Nato borders (Poland, Baltics). If the Ukrainian rump state becomes Belarus 2.0, that number rises to 7. Each one of those seven states are functioning participatory democracies. How will Russian armies on their border impact politics? Will it stiffen their resolve (ala Poland), or will it weaken it (Hungary). For sure, it will not have "no effect." Will Russian efforts to influence their elections be enhanced by their control over Ukraine and Modlova?
4) In democracies, the pendulum swings. Current regimes will be replaced. Usually, that will be by parties with different ideas. How long before we see a party with softly or harshly anti-Nato or even pro-Russian policies swing to power? Wouldn't that increase the possibility of another Maidan crisis? For sure it increases the number of countries in which such could happen to 7 instead of 3.
5) So, you are SecState. All of the above has happened. (the course is certain, if we lose in Ukraine, only the timeline is in question). One odd morning before coffee, you get the phone call from your COS that the Romanian Army has just surrounded key government buildings in Bucharest. Some general you don't remember meeting is making an announcement that new elections will be held in 90 days. What do you do?

The answer is: the very first thing you do is kick yourself in the ass for a few minutes for not stopping Russia in the Donbas.

Because, now, you have to worry about that general announcing a withdrawal from Nato. You have to worry about Russia effectively controlling elections held by the Romanan military, almost certainly electing a pro-Russian government that will announce a withdrawal from Nato. What do you do when each of those things happen? Complicating things, there will likely be an exiled Romanian regime encamped somewhere demanding Article 5 protections. (serious implications follow). Do we invade a Nato member to restore an exiled regime? Remember, how you respond will be watched with somewhat more than passing interest in Budapest, Warsaw, Bratislava, Tallin, Riga, and Vilnius. We would have no proxy to fight for us. it's a Manichean option - we either let it happen, and deal with the consequences (sharply weaked Nato) or we commit my daughter and a hundred thousand or so more sons & daughters back into the fray. All because you won the argument that we had no business helping Ukraine.

Everything I've posted is plainly known/seen to anyone with a basic knowledge of "the area" and "the business." EVERYTHING Putin has said and done for 25 years has been dedicated to that goal....the goal of getting all the former WP nations out of Nato. The main reason we haven't stopped him yet? The argument of ripeness: Oh, Russia is paper tiger. Look how hard they had to work to subdue Gozny, they said. The faulty premise with that line of reasoning is that the Russian battle plan illustrates weakness. In fact, it's the opposite. Such a plan is just the Russian MO. "We will take what we want and we don't care how many people we kill on either side, how many lives we destroy on either side, how much economic destruction we inflict on either side. If we want it, we want it worse than you and we will happily outbleed you, no matter how long it takes." That reasoning sounds hollow. Unless Russia is your neighbor.

We know that Russia ideologically rejects classical liberalism and democracy, seeing them as threats to the Russian way of life. We know Putin has repeatedly stated about return of Russian hegemony over the entire USSR footprint. Look what he's actually done about it. Consistently. A predictable as sunshine in the morning. How on earth could anyone possibly think Ukraine will satisfy them?

As long as there is a single Ukrainian willing to die for his country, we should make sure he/she never fails for lack of arms & ammo. Every day of battle degrades the Russian war machine. Every day of battle pushes out into the future the time it will take Russia to rebuild. It is borderline madness to cut off the military supply lines to Ukraine, when the consequences are uniformly negative, short and long term, to US interests and actually significantly increase the prospects of escalation.

Your policy on Ukraine is well beyond undesirable.

---

This is why countries like Romania never should have joined NATO. The dilemma you describe is a predictable result of the policies you advocate.

---

that is a very fair point.

Unfortunately, the question is "asked & answered." The decision has been made. We have a treaty obligation to defend Romania. We can't say "oh well, we shouldn't have done that in the first place." We have to honor the obligation or.....dare I say it....we confirm Zelenskyy's press conference comments about American credibility. We balk, all of Nato is a paper tiger.

---

Sure, but we're talking about two different things now. We can defend Romania if we have to. That doesn't mean our policy needs to revolve around keeping Romania in NATO. It's not as if they bring much to the table in terms of strengthening the alliance. Strategically they're one of its weakest points, along with the Baltic states.

---

yes, but....

A) have we ever had a departure from Nato?
and
B) how that departure happens is a very important thing.
and
C) any departure is a loss for the alliance. A Russian client state in Romania opens up the slavic parts of the Balkans to Donbas/Transnistria type nonense, which proliferates problems for all the remaining members.
and
D) see above about avoiding all that by just winning the damned proxy war we're in right now.

There is no upside to not winning.......

---

We've been "avoiding" war by instigating war for as long as I can remember. If our policy is that we can have client states but Russia can't, we're never going to avoid war.

---

The problem is of course that the D.C. ruling class....trained by academics in foreign policy at Harvard, Georgetown, Princeton....think spheres of influence is an outdated concept, even a "dangerous" and "reactionary" concept.

Of course that is madness..spheres of influence have been a thing since the Bronze age (if not forever) and will always be a thing among great States.

https://thehill.com/opinion/international/591599-spheres-of-influence-are-back-whether-us-policymakers-accept-it-or-not/

[The U.S. foreign policy establishment continues to view the very idea of spheres of influence other than its own, of course as a dangerous atavism that must not be allowed a second act. The return to a world of spheres of influence, or so the argument runs, would mark the definitive end of the quarter-century-long unipolar moment and the liberal international order that it spawned. ]

whiterock said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

---

Of course he is. It is in his and Ukraine's best interest to add NATO to his defense. Why would anyone expect him not to play for NATO to enter the war???

It is up to NATO to set the parameters of support, not Zelinsky. He will take whatever support we will give, it is nave and foolish to expect otherwise. Don't see the point of Wolfe's tweet besides dramatic effect.

---

Zelensky is saying that it will absolutely happen, not that it's on the table as an option.

---

Exactly.

Ukraine can push, publicly and privately, all it wants to for Nato membership. And such will have an impact on it's foreign relationships.

NATO is not obligated by any of that. Nor has NATO made any promises. NATO is doing what NATO should, exercising strategic ambiguity....not clearly indicating whether it will or will not admit Ukraine. That complicates Russian calculations.

I don't see a likely scenario for Ukraine entering Nato. Major issues: such would ratify the Russian excuse for the war in the first place, such would put MORE Russian/Nato divisions stationed across borders from each other, such would have opposition from Nato members. I would assess Turkey as a hard NO to Ukrainian membership. Crimea and much of southern Ukraine was once either integral or vassal to the Ottoman Empire. A weak, independent Ukrainian state is far more useful to Turkey than a peer state within Nato that could count on Article 5 protections.

The forces driving this war are as old as time. Turkey, if one were to spend all night drinking raki with Erdogan, has not given up on the romantic notion of one day returning those lands to a regime enforcing sharia law, as a protectorate of Turkey. That such is impossible in any practical scenario one could devise does not mean that such romance would not have influence over policy today.

I would be extremely reluctant to admit Ukraine to NATO. Would not close the door, but would want to see a couple decades to assess the stability of the Ukrainian society. By contrast, an independent Ukraine counting on partner status with Nato is a manageable scenario with limited short-term downside. A Ukrainian state careening between pro-West and pro-Russian factions is only a problem if that state is already a NATO ally. Nato has never had a scenario where undemocratic actions inside a member state has threatened to fracture the alliance. We should not court such a scenario by admitting unstable partners, particularly not when Russian armies are waiting to come to the aid of a country that has undemocratically chosen to withraw from Nato. The problems are myriad: Do we attack a Nato state to return them to an alliance? Do we invoke Article 5 on behalf of a regime in exile to fight to expel Russian troops from a Nato state which has invited them in? We did that in WWII. Do we do it today? Hard choices. Which are best avoided by winning the current conflict.

the size of Nato makes in virtually invulnerable to military attack.
the size of Nato makes it HIGHLY vulnerable to 5th column actions.

Ergo the need to keep Russian armies in Russia.......

---

The other question is does Article 5 apply to a Nation at war when admitted? It is a totally different scenario than what Article 5 was intended, which is prevent war.

Russia invading The Baltics is a different scenario for NATO than admitting a war torn Umraine. Not a slam dunk.

One of NATO's entry provisions is that a country cannot be currently in a war, and they especially cannot have any disputed borders. NATO only becomes an option for Ukraine once the war is officially concluded and the borders get set.

HuMcK said:

---

One of NATO's entry provisions is that a country cannot be currently in a war, and they especially cannot have any disputed borders. NATO only becomes an option for Ukraine once the war is officially concluded and the borders get set.

---

Thanks, didn't know those points. Well, that ends that...

whiterock said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

---

Of course he is. It is in his and Ukraine's best interest to add NATO to his defense. Why would anyone expect him not to play for NATO to enter the war???

It is up to NATO to set the parameters of support, not Zelinsky. He will take whatever support we will give, it is nave and foolish to expect otherwise. Don't see the point of Wolfe's tweet besides dramatic effect.

---

Zelensky is saying that it will absolutely happen, not that it's on the table as an option.

---

Exactly.

Ukraine can push, publicly and privately, all it wants to for Nato membership. And such will have an impact on it's foreign relationships.

NATO is not obligated by any of that. Nor has NATO made any promises. NATO is doing what NATO should, exercising strategic ambiguity....not clearly indicating whether it will or will not admit Ukraine. That complicates Russian calculations.

I don't see a likely scenario for Ukraine entering Nato. Major issues: such would ratify the Russian excuse for the war in the first place, such would put MORE Russian/Nato divisions stationed across borders from each other, such would have opposition from Nato members. I would assess Turkey as a hard NO to Ukrainian membership. Crimea and much of southern Ukraine was once either integral or vassal to the Ottoman Empire. A weak, independent Ukrainian state is far more useful to Turkey than a peer state within Nato that could count on Article 5 protections.

The forces driving this war are as old as time. Turkey, if one were to spend all night drinking raki with Erdogan, has not given up on the romantic notion of one day returning those lands to a regime enforcing sharia law, as a protectorate of Turkey. That such is impossible in any practical scenario one could devise does not mean that such romance would not have influence over policy today.

I would be extremely reluctant to admit Ukraine to NATO. Would not close the door, but would want to see a couple decades to assess the stability of the Ukrainian society. By contrast, an independent Ukraine counting on partner status with Nato is a manageable scenario with limited short-term downside. A Ukrainian state careening between pro-West and pro-Russian factions is only a problem if that state is already a NATO ally. Nato has never had a scenario where undemocratic actions inside a member state has threatened to fracture the alliance. We should not court such a scenario by admitting unstable partners, particularly not when Russian armies are waiting to come to the aid of a country that has undemocratically chosen to withraw from Nato. The problems are myriad: Do we attack a Nato state to return them to an alliance? Do we invoke Article 5 on behalf of a regime in exile to fight to expel Russian troops from a Nato state which has invited them in? We did that in WWII. Do we do it today? Hard choices. Which are best avoided by winning the current conflict.

the size of Nato makes in virtually invulnerable to military attack.
the size of Nato makes it HIGHLY vulnerable to 5th column actions.

Ergo the need to keep Russian armies in Russia.......

---

What are the risks in pursuit of winning the current conflict?

HuMcK said:

---

One of NATO's entry provisions is that a country cannot be currently in a war, and they especially cannot have any disputed borders. NATO only becomes an option for Ukraine once the war is officially concluded and the borders get set.

---

Which is why Zelensky is leading Ukraine to ruin.

NATO will not take Ukraine while its at war...thus Putin the KGB goon decides "lets keep Ukraine in low level conflict forever"

Its the Afghanistan-ization or Syrian-ization of Ukraine.

Ukraine has already lost 8 million people (fled abroad)...with 150,000 killed...and at least a trillion dollars in damage.

Imagine what another few years of war will do to Ukraine.

And as long as conflict goes on NATO never expands.

Its a ruthless and immoral (yet effective) strategy.

BREAKING: NBC News / MSNBC concedes that Zelensky’s goal of retaking Crimea is unrealistic and dangerous.pic.twitter.com/fb2RCRBHOn

— David Sacks (@DavidSacks) March 1, 2023

This is a huge admission because it means that Biden’s policy of “only the Ukrainians can decide” the objectives of the war makes no sense. We’re effectively delegating our foreign policy to Zelensky, who is pursuing objectives that we don’t agree with.

— David Sacks (@DavidSacks) March 1, 2023

Sam Lowry said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

I won't abandon Sanity.

I won't lie to sell my position.

I won't ignore the deaths of innocents in the name of politics.

Some here have done so, it appears.

---

You also won't identify how letting Russia annex all/part of Ukraine is preferable to the current situation.

---

Since I oppose Putin's invasion, of course I do not consider that acceptable. Have you ignored all my prior posts?

---

The peace argument for this war is quite weaker than most.

Putin's policy is quite clear, consistent, in both statement and deed. He is going to keep coming westward, with columns armored and fifth, until the Baltics, Poland, Slovakia, Hungary, and Romania are no longer members in Nato. The only question is time...

---

Come on...you can not possibly know that.

Not to mention any invasion, attack, aggression against any NATO state means war with the USA-UK-France-Germany.

Russia of course would be wiped out in such a war.

There is no rational world were we see Russian troop watering their horses in the Danube river.

This statement of "we must stop Russia in Donbas (where the people are ethnic Russians) before they reach Poland or Hungary" is just classic pro-war propaganda.

Hungary (long under the Soviet boot) is the lone voice of peace out there in Europe right now. They are not afraid that Russia is going to come for them next.

If the Hungarians are not afraid why should beltway boomers in D.C. be afraid?

If anything this war against Ukraine as given NATO a new lease on life.

---

How can you possibly ignore that? Beyond the patent weak-man argument of the remaining post, to suggest that we cannot make sound assessments, given Russian intentions and capabilities and MO, shows profound lack of understanding of history and foreign affairs.

Here's a scenario: Ukraine falls. Russia annexes everything east of the Dnieper, and the Ukrainian coast all the way to the Romanian and Moldovan borders. That was the manifest intent of their invasion. If/when that happens, the implications are:
1) Russia now has a supply chain to Transnistria, where a Donbas-type insurgency is underway as we argue. The ability to directly supply the Russian separatists by land means Russia effectively owns Moldova, given the relative size of Transnistria to the Moldovan state. Moldova cannot stop Russia. It immediately becomes a Russian puppet state, unless the West responds with support for the existing government, creating exactly the same dynamic as developed in Ukraine 2010-2022. How far will it go? What are you going to do? Are you going to let it happen? How does another Russian puppet state further US policy interests?
2) The rump Ukrainian state would remain - Lvov and Kiev. What is your policy? Do we just back off and let it go the way of Belarus? Or do we replay the same game we've played in Ukraine since 2014, only with a sharply weaker hand? Why on earth would we chose that option when we have a better one today?
3) Russian armies are currently encamped on 4 Nato borders (Poland, Baltics). If the Ukrainian rump state becomes Belarus 2.0, that number rises to 7. Each one of those seven states are functioning participatory democracies. How will Russian armies on their border impact politics? Will it stiffen their resolve (ala Poland), or will it weaken it (Hungary). For sure, it will not have "no effect." Will Russian efforts to influence their elections be enhanced by their control over Ukraine and Modlova?
4) In democracies, the pendulum swings. Current regimes will be replaced. Usually, that will be by parties with different ideas. How long before we see a party with softly or harshly anti-Nato or even pro-Russian policies swing to power? Wouldn't that increase the possibility of another Maidan crisis? For sure it increases the number of countries in which such could happen to 7 instead of 3.
5) So, you are SecState. All of the above has happened. (the course is certain, if we lose in Ukraine, only the timeline is in question). One odd morning before coffee, you get the phone call from your COS that the Romanian Army has just surrounded key government buildings in Bucharest. Some general you don't remember meeting is making an announcement that new elections will be held in 90 days. What do you do?

The answer is: the very first thing you do is kick yourself in the ass for a few minutes for not stopping Russia in the Donbas.

Because, now, you have to worry about that general announcing a withdrawal from Nato. You have to worry about Russia effectively controlling elections held by the Romanan military, almost certainly electing a pro-Russian government that will announce a withdrawal from Nato. What do you do when each of those things happen? Complicating things, there will likely be an exiled Romanian regime encamped somewhere demanding Article 5 protections. (serious implications follow). Do we invade a Nato member to restore an exiled regime? Remember, how you respond will be watched with somewhat more than passing interest in Budapest, Warsaw, Bratislava, Tallin, Riga, and Vilnius. We would have no proxy to fight for us. it's a Manichean option - we either let it happen, and deal with the consequences (sharply weaked Nato) or we commit my daughter and a hundred thousand or so more sons & daughters back into the fray. All because you won the argument that we had no business helping Ukraine.

Everything I've posted is plainly known/seen to anyone with a basic knowledge of "the area" and "the business." EVERYTHING Putin has said and done for 25 years has been dedicated to that goal....the goal of getting all the former WP nations out of Nato. The main reason we haven't stopped him yet? The argument of ripeness: Oh, Russia is paper tiger. Look how hard they had to work to subdue Gozny, they said. The faulty premise with that line of reasoning is that the Russian battle plan illustrates weakness. In fact, it's the opposite. Such a plan is just the Russian MO. "We will take what we want and we don't care how many people we kill on either side, how many lives we destroy on either side, how much economic destruction we inflict on either side. If we want it, we want it worse than you and we will happily outbleed you, no matter how long it takes." That reasoning sounds hollow. Unless Russia is your neighbor.

We know that Russia ideologically rejects classical liberalism and democracy, seeing them as threats to the Russian way of life. We know Putin has repeatedly stated about return of Russian hegemony over the entire USSR footprint. Look what he's actually done about it. Consistently. A predictable as sunshine in the morning. How on earth could anyone possibly think Ukraine will satisfy them?

As long as there is a single Ukrainian willing to die for his country, we should make sure he/she never fails for lack of arms & ammo. Every day of battle degrades the Russian war machine. Every day of battle pushes out into the future the time it will take Russia to rebuild. It is borderline madness to cut off the military supply lines to Ukraine, when the consequences are uniformly negative, short and long term, to US interests and actually significantly increase the prospects of escalation.

Your policy on Ukraine is well beyond undesirable.

---

This is why countries like Romania never should have joined NATO. The dilemma you describe is a predictable result of the policies you advocate.

---

I can't imagine why any nascent country freeing itself from the thumb of its oppressor would be interested in protecting itself from becoming under its thumb again by forces it couldn't defeat alone….

These are such poor takes.

The NYT, Spectator and NBC News — once cheerleaders for maximalist Ukrainian demands — are now suddenly urging Ukraine to get realistic about its goals. pic.twitter.com/tzrFgTP2Pp

— David Sacks (@DavidSacks) March 2, 2023

Sam Lowry said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

whiterock said:

---

You also won't identify how letting Russia annex all/part of Ukraine is preferable to the current situation.

---

Since I oppose Putin's invasion, of course I do not consider that acceptable. Have you ignored all my prior posts?

---

The peace argument for this war is quite weaker than most.

Putin's policy is quite clear, consistent, in both statement and deed. He is going to keep coming westward, with columns armored and fifth, until the Baltics, Poland, Slovakia, Hungary, and Romania are no longer members in Nato. The only question is time...

---

Come on...you can not possibly know that.

Not to mention any invasion, attack, aggression against any NATO state means war with the USA-UK-France-Germany.

Russia of course would be wiped out in such a war.

There is no rational world were we see Russian troop watering their horses in the Danube river.

This statement of "we must stop Russia in Donbas (where the people are ethnic Russians) before they reach Poland or Hungary" is just classic pro-war propaganda.

Hungary (long under the Soviet boot) is the lone voice of peace out there in Europe right now. They are not afraid that Russia is going to come for them next.

If the Hungarians are not afraid why should beltway boomers in D.C. be afraid?

If anything this war against Ukraine as given NATO a new lease on life.

---

How can you possibly ignore that? Beyond the patent weak-man argument of the remaining post, to suggest that we cannot make sound assessments, given Russian intentions and capabilities and MO, shows profound lack of understanding of history and foreign affairs.

Here's a scenario: Ukraine falls. Russia annexes everything east of the Dnieper, and the Ukrainian coast all the way to the Romanian and Moldovan borders. That was the manifest intent of their invasion. If/when that happens, the implications are:
1) Russia now has a supply chain to Transnistria, where a Donbas-type insurgency is underway as we argue. The ability to directly supply the Russian separatists by land means Russia effectively owns Moldova, given the relative size of Transnistria to the Moldovan state. Moldova cannot stop Russia. It immediately becomes a Russian puppet state, unless the West responds with support for the existing government, creating exactly the same dynamic as developed in Ukraine 2010-2022. How far will it go? What are you going to do? Are you going to let it happen? How does another Russian puppet state further US policy interests?
2) The rump Ukrainian state would remain - Lvov and Kiev. What is your policy? Do we just back off and let it go the way of Belarus? Or do we replay the same game we've played in Ukraine since 2014, only with a sharply weaker hand? Why on earth would we chose that option when we have a better one today?
3) Russian armies are currently encamped on 4 Nato borders (Poland, Baltics). If the Ukrainian rump state becomes Belarus 2.0, that number rises to 7. Each one of those seven states are functioning participatory democracies. How will Russian armies on their border impact politics? Will it stiffen their resolve (ala Poland), or will it weaken it (Hungary). For sure, it will not have "no effect." Will Russian efforts to influence their elections be enhanced by their control over Ukraine and Modlova?
4) In democracies, the pendulum swings. Current regimes will be replaced. Usually, that will be by parties with different ideas. How long before we see a party with softly or harshly anti-Nato or even pro-Russian policies swing to power? Wouldn't that increase the possibility of another Maidan crisis? For sure it increases the number of countries in which such could happen to 7 instead of 3.
5) So, you are SecState. All of the above has happened. (the course is certain, if we lose in Ukraine, only the timeline is in question). One odd morning before coffee, you get the phone call from your COS that the Romanian Army has just surrounded key government buildings in Bucharest. Some general you don't remember meeting is making an announcement that new elections will be held in 90 days. What do you do?

The answer is: the very first thing you do is kick yourself in the ass for a few minutes for not stopping Russia in the Donbas.

Because, now, you have to worry about that general announcing a withdrawal from Nato. You have to worry about Russia effectively controlling elections held by the Romanan military, almost certainly electing a pro-Russian government that will announce a withdrawal from Nato. What do you do when each of those things happen? Complicating things, there will likely be an exiled Romanian regime encamped somewhere demanding Article 5 protections. (serious implications follow). Do we invade a Nato member to restore an exiled regime? Remember, how you respond will be watched with somewhat more than passing interest in Budapest, Warsaw, Bratislava, Tallin, Riga, and Vilnius. We would have no proxy to fight for us. it's a Manichean option - we either let it happen, and deal with the consequences (sharply weaked Nato) or we commit my daughter and a hundred thousand or so more sons & daughters back into the fray. All because you won the argument that we had no business helping Ukraine.

Everything I've posted is plainly known/seen to anyone with a basic knowledge of "the area" and "the business." EVERYTHING Putin has said and done for 25 years has been dedicated to that goal....the goal of getting all the former WP nations out of Nato. The main reason we haven't stopped him yet? The argument of ripeness: Oh, Russia is paper tiger. Look how hard they had to work to subdue Gozny, they said. The faulty premise with that line of reasoning is that the Russian battle plan illustrates weakness. In fact, it's the opposite. Such a plan is just the Russian MO. "We will take what we want and we don't care how many people we kill on either side, how many lives we destroy on either side, how much economic destruction we inflict on either side. If we want it, we want it worse than you and we will happily outbleed you, no matter how long it takes." That reasoning sounds hollow. Unless Russia is your neighbor.

We know that Russia ideologically rejects classical liberalism and democracy, seeing them as threats to the Russian way of life. We know Putin has repeatedly stated about return of Russian hegemony over the entire USSR footprint. Look what he's actually done about it. Consistently. A predictable as sunshine in the morning. How on earth could anyone possibly think Ukraine will satisfy them?

As long as there is a single Ukrainian willing to die for his country, we should make sure he/she never fails for lack of arms & ammo. Every day of battle degrades the Russian war machine. Every day of battle pushes out into the future the time it will take Russia to rebuild. It is borderline madness to cut off the military supply lines to Ukraine, when the consequences are uniformly negative, short and long term, to US interests and actually significantly increase the prospects of escalation.

Your policy on Ukraine is well beyond undesirable.

---

This is why countries like Romania never should have joined NATO. The dilemma you describe is a predictable result of the policies you advocate.

---

that is a very fair point.

Unfortunately, the question is "asked & answered." The decision has been made. We have a treaty obligation to defend Romania. We can't say "oh well, we shouldn't have done that in the first place." We have to honor the obligation or.....dare I say it....we confirm Zelenskyy's press conference comments about American credibility. We balk, all of Nato is a paper tiger.

---

Sure, but we're talking about two different things now. We can defend Romania if we have to. That doesn't mean our policy needs to revolve around keeping Romania in NATO. It's not as if they bring much to the table in terms of strengthening the alliance. Strategically they're one of its weakest points, along with the Baltic states.

---

yes, but....

A) have we ever had a departure from Nato?
and
B) how that departure happens is a very important thing.
and
C) any departure is a loss for the alliance. A Russian client state in Romania opens up the slavic parts of the Balkans to Donbas/Transnistria type nonense, which proliferates problems for all the remaining members.
and
D) see above about avoiding all that by just winning the damned proxy war we're in right now.

There is no upside to not winning.......

---

We've been "avoiding" war by instigating war for as long as I can remember. If our policy is that we can have client states but Russia can't, we're never going to avoid war.

---

That part in bold may be true, and without debating the wisdom of such it is always a policy option on the table but wholly immaterial in this particular instance as we most certainly did not instigate the war in question.

That part not in bold is also not an argument I've been making. I would in fact insist the opposite. Russia uses client states, and so should we. Because it is a wise use of power, to avoid direct conflict with adversaries, constantly testing and probing to show strength and resolve. If you fail to do that, they will keep advancing with the bayonet, until they reach steel. So show them steel on the first inch. And the second, And so on.

The argument that we "forced" Russia to do this the highest form of poppycock.

Redbrickbear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

Come on...you can not possibly know that.

Not to mention any invasion, attack, aggression against any NATO state means war with the USA-UK-France-Germany.

Russia of course would be wiped out in such a war.

There is no rational world were we see Russian troop watering their horses in the Danube river.

This statement of "we must stop Russia in Donbas (where the people are ethnic Russians) before they reach Poland or Hungary" is just classic pro-war propaganda.

Hungary (long under the Soviet boot) is the lone voice of peace out there in Europe right now. They are not afraid that Russia is going to come for them next.

If the Hungarians are not afraid why should beltway boomers in D.C. be afraid?

If anything this war against Ukraine as given NATO a new lease on life.

---

How can you possibly ignore that? Beyond the patent weak-man argument of the remaining post, to suggest that we cannot make sound assessments, given Russian intentions and capabilities and MO, shows profound lack of understanding of history and foreign affairs.

Here's a scenario: Ukraine falls. Russia annexes everything east of the Dnieper, and the Ukrainian coast all the way to the Romanian and Moldovan borders. That was the manifest intent of their invasion. If/when that happens, the implications are:
1) Russia now has a supply chain to Transnistria, where a Donbas-type insurgency is underway as we argue. The ability to directly supply the Russian separatists by land means Russia effectively owns Moldova, given the relative size of Transnistria to the Moldovan state. Moldova cannot stop Russia. It immediately becomes a Russian puppet state, unless the West responds with support for the existing government, creating exactly the same dynamic as developed in Ukraine 2010-2022. How far will it go? What are you going to do? Are you going to let it happen? How does another Russian puppet state further US policy interests?
2) The rump Ukrainian state would remain - Lvov and Kiev. What is your policy? Do we just back off and let it go the way of Belarus? Or do we replay the same game we've played in Ukraine since 2014, only with a sharply weaker hand? Why on earth would we chose that option when we have a better one today?
3) Russian armies are currently encamped on 4 Nato borders (Poland, Baltics). If the Ukrainian rump state becomes Belarus 2.0, that number rises to 7. Each one of those seven states are functioning participatory democracies. How will Russian armies on their border impact politics? Will it stiffen their resolve (ala Poland), or will it weaken it (Hungary). For sure, it will not have "no effect." Will Russian efforts to influence their elections be enhanced by their control over Ukraine and Modlova?
4) In democracies, the pendulum swings. Current regimes will be replaced. Usually, that will be by parties with different ideas. How long before we see a party with softly or harshly anti-Nato or even pro-Russian policies swing to power? Wouldn't that increase the possibility of another Maidan crisis? For sure it increases the number of countries in which such could happen to 7 instead of 3.
5) So, you are SecState. All of the above has happened. (the course is certain, if we lose in Ukraine, only the timeline is in question). One odd morning before coffee, you get the phone call from your COS that the Romanian Army has just surrounded key government buildings in Bucharest. Some general you don't remember meeting is making an announcement that new elections will be held in 90 days. What do you do?

The answer is: the very first thing you do is kick yourself in the ass for a few minutes for not stopping Russia in the Donbas.

Because, now, you have to worry about that general announcing a withdrawal from Nato. You have to worry about Russia effectively controlling elections held by the Romanan military, almost certainly electing a pro-Russian government that will announce a withdrawal from Nato. What do you do when each of those things happen? Complicating things, there will likely be an exiled Romanian regime encamped somewhere demanding Article 5 protections. (serious implications follow). Do we invade a Nato member to restore an exiled regime? Remember, how you respond will be watched with somewhat more than passing interest in Budapest, Warsaw, Bratislava, Tallin, Riga, and Vilnius. We would have no proxy to fight for us. it's a Manichean option - we either let it happen, and deal with the consequences (sharply weaked Nato) or we commit my daughter and a hundred thousand or so more sons & daughters back into the fray. All because you won the argument that we had no business helping Ukraine.

Everything I've posted is plainly known/seen to anyone with a basic knowledge of "the area" and "the business." EVERYTHING Putin has said and done for 25 years has been dedicated to that goal....the goal of getting all the former WP nations out of Nato. The main reason we haven't stopped him yet? The argument of ripeness: Oh, Russia is paper tiger. Look how hard they had to work to subdue Gozny, they said. The faulty premise with that line of reasoning is that the Russian battle plan illustrates weakness. In fact, it's the opposite. Such a plan is just the Russian MO. "We will take what we want and we don't care how many people we kill on either side, how many lives we destroy on either side, how much economic destruction we inflict on either side. If we want it, we want it worse than you and we will happily outbleed you, no matter how long it takes." That reasoning sounds hollow. Unless Russia is your neighbor.

We know that Russia ideologically rejects classical liberalism and democracy, seeing them as threats to the Russian way of life. We know Putin has repeatedly stated about return of Russian hegemony over the entire USSR footprint. Look what he's actually done about it. Consistently. A predictable as sunshine in the morning. How on earth could anyone possibly think Ukraine will satisfy them?

As long as there is a single Ukrainian willing to die for his country, we should make sure he/she never fails for lack of arms & ammo. Every day of battle degrades the Russian war machine. Every day of battle pushes out into the future the time it will take Russia to rebuild. It is borderline madness to cut off the military supply lines to Ukraine, when the consequences are uniformly negative, short and long term, to US interests and actually significantly increase the prospects of escalation.

Your policy on Ukraine is well beyond undesirable.

---

This is why countries like Romania never should have joined NATO. The dilemma you describe is a predictable result of the policies you advocate.

---

that is a very fair point.

Unfortunately, the question is "asked & answered." The decision has been made. We have a treaty obligation to defend Romania. We can't say "oh well, we shouldn't have done that in the first place." We have to honor the obligation or.....dare I say it....we confirm Zelenskyy's press conference comments about American credibility. We balk, all of Nato is a paper tiger.

---

Sure, but we're talking about two different things now. We can defend Romania if we have to. That doesn't mean our policy needs to revolve around keeping Romania in NATO. It's not as if they bring much to the table in terms of strengthening the alliance. Strategically they're one of its weakest points, along with the Baltic states.

---

yes, but....

A) have we ever had a departure from Nato?
and
B) how that departure happens is a very important thing.
and
C) any departure is a loss for the alliance. A Russian client state in Romania opens up the slavic parts of the Balkans to Donbas/Transnistria type nonense, which proliferates problems for all the remaining members.
and
D) see above about avoiding all that by just winning the damned proxy war we're in right now.

There is no upside to not winning.......

---

We've been "avoiding" war by instigating war for as long as I can remember. If our policy is that we can have client states but Russia can't, we're never going to avoid war.

---

The problem is of course that the D.C. ruling class....trained by academics in foreign policy at Harvard, Georgetown, Princeton....think spheres of influence is an outdated concept, even a "dangerous" and "reactionary" concept.

Of course that is madness..spheres of influence have been a thing since the Bronze age (if not forever) and will always be a thing among great States.

https://thehill.com/opinion/international/591599-spheres-of-influence-are-back-whether-us-policymakers-accept-it-or-not/

[The U.S. foreign policy establishment continues to view the very idea of spheres of influence other than its own, of course as a dangerous atavism that must not be allowed a second act. The return to a world of spheres of influence, or so the argument runs, would mark the definitive end of the quarter-century-long unipolar moment and the liberal international order that it spawned. ]

---

The problem with that textbook reality is that it is being mis-applied, or rather less than half-applied to Ukraine. Yes, Ukraine is in Russia's sphere of influence. But it is also in Europe's sphere of influence. And nations within those spheres of influence have their own influence, they do have a say on the course of events. They do influence the course of events in such things. Sometimes, they escape orbit of their betters. Much of modern Poland, Ukraine and Belarus was once known as Lithuania. Finland was once rather uncontentiously part of Sweden. Things change. According to predictable dynamics with sometimes unpredictable outcomes. Always have, always will. And Ukraine is not Alsace-Lorraine. It is not Prussia, or Poland, or Lithuania, etc... It is a nation, a true collection people with a common culture and tongue, 50m strong. It unlike almost any other nation in a shatterzone today technically does have the resources to carve out a space of its own. That's what it is trying to do today. US interests are not furthered an inch by abandoning Ukraine to Russian hegemony. They are significantly advanced by supporting Ukrainian independence from Russia, even if that means supporting Ukraine solely for the purpose of being the anvil upon which the Russian army is shattered.

The game of thrones is is a tough business. You win or you die.

No one here criticizing US support for Ukraine has yet suggested the faintest benefit to US national security by allowing Russia to fold Ukraine back into Russian orbit, accelerating Russian military and economic rebuilding and moving steadfast Russian adjacent to Nato borders.

If you're going to premise your opposition on power politics, don't cherry pick. Spheres of influence involve shatterzones. The purpose of shatterzones is to prevent power players from standing eyeball to eyeball. Your recommended policy would cause that to happen (a point you do not contest). Power Political analysis dictates always contest the shatterzone. Ukraine IS THE SHATTERZONE BETWEEN NATO AND RUSSIA.

Sam Lowry said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

I won't abandon Sanity.

I won't lie to sell my position.

I won't ignore the deaths of innocents in the name of politics.

Some here have done so, it appears.

---

You also won't identify how letting Russia annex all/part of Ukraine is preferable to the current situation.

---

Since I oppose Putin's invasion, of course I do not consider that acceptable. Have you ignored all my prior posts?

---

The peace argument for this war is quite weaker than most.

Putin's policy is quite clear, consistent, in both statement and deed. He is going to keep coming westward, with columns armored and fifth, until the Baltics, Poland, Slovakia, Hungary, and Romania are no longer members in Nato. The only question is time...

---

Come on...you can not possibly know that.

Not to mention any invasion, attack, aggression against any NATO state means war with the USA-UK-France-Germany.

Russia of course would be wiped out in such a war.

There is no rational world were we see Russian troop watering their horses in the Danube river.

This statement of "we must stop Russia in Donbas (where the people are ethnic Russians) before they reach Poland or Hungary" is just classic pro-war propaganda.

Hungary (long under the Soviet boot) is the lone voice of peace out there in Europe right now. They are not afraid that Russia is going to come for them next.

If the Hungarians are not afraid why should beltway boomers in D.C. be afraid?

If anything this war against Ukraine as given NATO a new lease on life.

---

How can you possibly ignore that? Beyond the patent weak-man argument of the remaining post, to suggest that we cannot make sound assessments, given Russian intentions and capabilities and MO, shows profound lack of understanding of history and foreign affairs.

Here's a scenario: Ukraine falls. Russia annexes everything east of the Dnieper, and the Ukrainian coast all the way to the Romanian and Moldovan borders. That was the manifest intent of their invasion. If/when that happens, the implications are:
1) Russia now has a supply chain to Transnistria, where a Donbas-type insurgency is underway as we argue. The ability to directly supply the Russian separatists by land means Russia effectively owns Moldova, given the relative size of Transnistria to the Moldovan state. Moldova cannot stop Russia. It immediately becomes a Russian puppet state, unless the West responds with support for the existing government, creating exactly the same dynamic as developed in Ukraine 2010-2022. How far will it go? What are you going to do? Are you going to let it happen? How does another Russian puppet state further US policy interests?
2) The rump Ukrainian state would remain - Lvov and Kiev. What is your policy? Do we just back off and let it go the way of Belarus? Or do we replay the same game we've played in Ukraine since 2014, only with a sharply weaker hand? Why on earth would we chose that option when we have a better one today?
3) Russian armies are currently encamped on 4 Nato borders (Poland, Baltics). If the Ukrainian rump state becomes Belarus 2.0, that number rises to 7. Each one of those seven states are functioning participatory democracies. How will Russian armies on their border impact politics? Will it stiffen their resolve (ala Poland), or will it weaken it (Hungary). For sure, it will not have "no effect." Will Russian efforts to influence their elections be enhanced by their control over Ukraine and Modlova?
4) In democracies, the pendulum swings. Current regimes will be replaced. Usually, that will be by parties with different ideas. How long before we see a party with softly or harshly anti-Nato or even pro-Russian policies swing to power? Wouldn't that increase the possibility of another Maidan crisis? For sure it increases the number of countries in which such could happen to 7 instead of 3.
5) So, you are SecState. All of the above has happened. (the course is certain, if we lose in Ukraine, only the timeline is in question). One odd morning before coffee, you get the phone call from your COS that the Romanian Army has just surrounded key government buildings in Bucharest. Some general you don't remember meeting is making an announcement that new elections will be held in 90 days. What do you do?

The answer is: the very first thing you do is kick yourself in the ass for a few minutes for not stopping Russia in the Donbas.

Because, now, you have to worry about that general announcing a withdrawal from Nato. You have to worry about Russia effectively controlling elections held by the Romanan military, almost certainly electing a pro-Russian government that will announce a withdrawal from Nato. What do you do when each of those things happen? Complicating things, there will likely be an exiled Romanian regime encamped somewhere demanding Article 5 protections. (serious implications follow). Do we invade a Nato member to restore an exiled regime? Remember, how you respond will be watched with somewhat more than passing interest in Budapest, Warsaw, Bratislava, Tallin, Riga, and Vilnius. We would have no proxy to fight for us. it's a Manichean option - we either let it happen, and deal with the consequences (sharply weaked Nato) or we commit my daughter and a hundred thousand or so more sons & daughters back into the fray. All because you won the argument that we had no business helping Ukraine.

Everything I've posted is plainly known/seen to anyone with a basic knowledge of "the area" and "the business." EVERYTHING Putin has said and done for 25 years has been dedicated to that goal....the goal of getting all the former WP nations out of Nato. The main reason we haven't stopped him yet? The argument of ripeness: Oh, Russia is paper tiger. Look how hard they had to work to subdue Gozny, they said. The faulty premise with that line of reasoning is that the Russian battle plan illustrates weakness. In fact, it's the opposite. Such a plan is just the Russian MO. "We will take what we want and we don't care how many people we kill on either side, how many lives we destroy on either side, how much economic destruction we inflict on either side. If we want it, we want it worse than you and we will happily outbleed you, no matter how long it takes." That reasoning sounds hollow. Unless Russia is your neighbor.

We know that Russia ideologically rejects classical liberalism and democracy, seeing them as threats to the Russian way of life. We know Putin has repeatedly stated about return of Russian hegemony over the entire USSR footprint. Look what he's actually done about it. Consistently. A predictable as sunshine in the morning. How on earth could anyone possibly think Ukraine will satisfy them?

As long as there is a single Ukrainian willing to die for his country, we should make sure he/she never fails for lack of arms & ammo. Every day of battle degrades the Russian war machine. Every day of battle pushes out into the future the time it will take Russia to rebuild. It is borderline madness to cut off the military supply lines to Ukraine, when the consequences are uniformly negative, short and long term, to US interests and actually significantly increase the prospects of escalation.

Your policy on Ukraine is well beyond undesirable.

---

This is why countries like Romania never should have joined NATO. The dilemma you describe is a predictable result of the policies you advocate.

---

that is a very fair point.

Unfortunately, the question is "asked & answered." The decision has been made. We have a treaty obligation to defend Romania. We can't say "oh well, we shouldn't have done that in the first place." We have to honor the obligation or.....dare I say it....we confirm Zelenskyy's press conference comments about American credibility. We balk, all of Nato is a paper tiger.

---

Sure, but we're talking about two different things now. We can defend Romania if we have to. That doesn't mean our policy needs to revolve around keeping Romania in NATO. It's not as if they bring much to the table in terms of strengthening the alliance. Strategically they're one of its weakest points, along with the Baltic states.

---

Yea there are lots of good articles out there about how the expansions of 2004 brought in a lot of poor countries that don't make good NATO partners to begin with....more liabilities than assets.

Obviously the expansion in 1999 that brought in Poland, Czechia, Hungary was a decent play. Poland especially is very geo-strategically important.

The 2004 expansion antagonized Russia and was certainly not necessary. Brought in a bunch of duds like Bulgaria, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Romania. Poor countries than can not defend themselves or really contribute much of anything to NATO defense.

Poland leaving NATO would be a blow. Latvia leaving would probably be a net benefit in truth.

---

Yep, expanding NATO has provoked our opponent and weakened our own position at the same time. And the next step is to do more of the same. Brilliant bit of strategy, isn't it?

---

Yup. And it is the current WH occupant that is a strong proponent of this strategy, which will only serve to weaken us, and increase the risk of war.

Oh, and just a reminder: Remember, you prefer this to DJT.

trey3216 said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

---

Of course he is. It is in his and Ukraine's best interest to add NATO to his defense. Why would anyone expect him not to play for NATO to enter the war???

It is up to NATO to set the parameters of support, not Zelinsky. He will take whatever support we will give, it is nave and foolish to expect otherwise. Don't see the point of Wolfe's tweet besides dramatic effect.

---

Zelensky is saying that it will absolutely happen, not that it's on the table as an option.

---

Exactly.

Ukraine can push, publicly and privately, all it wants to for Nato membership. And such will have an impact on it's foreign relationships.

NATO is not obligated by any of that. Nor has NATO made any promises. NATO is doing what NATO should, exercising strategic ambiguity....not clearly indicating whether it will or will not admit Ukraine. That complicates Russian calculations.

I don't see a likely scenario for Ukraine entering Nato. Major issues: such would ratify the Russian excuse for the war in the first place, such would put MORE Russian/Nato divisions stationed across borders from each other, such would have opposition from Nato members. I would assess Turkey as a hard NO to Ukrainian membership. Crimea and much of southern Ukraine was once either integral or vassal to the Ottoman Empire. A weak, independent Ukrainian state is far more useful to Turkey than a peer state within Nato that could count on Article 5 protections.

The forces driving this war are as old as time. Turkey, if one were to spend all night drinking raki with Erdogan, has not given up on the romantic notion of one day returning those lands to a regime enforcing sharia law, as a protectorate of Turkey. That such is impossible in any practical scenario one could devise does not mean that such romance would not have influence over policy today.

I would be extremely reluctant to admit Ukraine to NATO. Would not close the door, but would want to see a couple decades to assess the stability of the Ukrainian society. By contrast, an independent Ukraine counting on partner status with Nato is a manageable scenario with limited short-term downside. A Ukrainian state careening between pro-West and pro-Russian factions is only a problem if that state is already a NATO ally. Nato has never had a scenario where undemocratic actions inside a member state has threatened to fracture the alliance. We should not court such a scenario by admitting unstable partners, particularly not when Russian armies are waiting to come to the aid of a country that has undemocratically chosen to withraw from Nato. The problems are myriad: Do we attack a Nato state to return them to an alliance? Do we invoke Article 5 on behalf of a regime in exile to fight to expel Russian troops from a Nato state which has invited them in? We did that in WWII. Do we do it today? Hard choices. Which are best avoided by winning the current conflict.

the size of Nato makes in virtually invulnerable to military attack.
the size of Nato makes it HIGHLY vulnerable to 5th column actions.

Ergo the need to keep Russian armies in Russia.......

---

Ukraine can join NATO under 1 and only 1 condition….they need total victory in their war versus Russia.

Why?

Because Russia needs to be humiliated. Russia needs a face check in modern global affairs both politically and economically. Russia needs to understand that its long suffering, mafioso tactics have no business in an integrated world. That expansion by force is not a policy. That screaming Nazi at people you don't like (but oh so desperately want their land and for them to be integrated into your nation once you take it) is not a way of life, especially when you're acting as the Nazi in this scenario.

Then, and only then, can Ukraine be a part of NATO, because it won't matter if they're in nato anymore once Russia decides they don't want to be the heel

---

Ukraine can join NATO anytime two conditions are met: It applies, and Nato accepts. Nato is most certainly not going to accept Ukraine while it is engaged in a very hot war with Russia, as such would be a patent declaration of war against Russia. Ukraine knows this. That's why Ukraine is begging for arms & ammo from Nato countries. Ukraine can win the war if fully supplied.

Sam Lowry said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

I won't abandon Sanity.

I won't lie to sell my position.

I won't ignore the deaths of innocents in the name of politics.

Some here have done so, it appears.

---

You also won't identify how letting Russia annex all/part of Ukraine is preferable to the current situation.

---

Since I oppose Putin's invasion, of course I do not consider that acceptable. Have you ignored all my prior posts?

---

The peace argument for this war is quite weaker than most.

Putin's policy is quite clear, consistent, in both statement and deed. He is going to keep coming westward, with columns armored and fifth, until the Baltics, Poland, Slovakia, Hungary, and Romania are no longer members in Nato. The only question is time...

---

Come on...you can not possibly know that.

Not to mention any invasion, attack, aggression against any NATO state means war with the USA-UK-France-Germany.

Russia of course would be wiped out in such a war.

There is no rational world were we see Russian troop watering their horses in the Danube river.

This statement of "we must stop Russia in Donbas (where the people are ethnic Russians) before they reach Poland or Hungary" is just classic pro-war propaganda.

Hungary (long under the Soviet boot) is the lone voice of peace out there in Europe right now. They are not afraid that Russia is going to come for them next.

If the Hungarians are not afraid why should beltway boomers in D.C. be afraid?

If anything this war against Ukraine as given NATO a new lease on life.

---

How can you possibly ignore that? Beyond the patent weak-man argument of the remaining post, to suggest that we cannot make sound assessments, given Russian intentions and capabilities and MO, shows profound lack of understanding of history and foreign affairs.

Here's a scenario: Ukraine falls. Russia annexes everything east of the Dnieper, and the Ukrainian coast all the way to the Romanian and Moldovan borders. That was the manifest intent of their invasion. If/when that happens, the implications are:
1) Russia now has a supply chain to Transnistria, where a Donbas-type insurgency is underway as we argue. The ability to directly supply the Russian separatists by land means Russia effectively owns Moldova, given the relative size of Transnistria to the Moldovan state. Moldova cannot stop Russia. It immediately becomes a Russian puppet state, unless the West responds with support for the existing government, creating exactly the same dynamic as developed in Ukraine 2010-2022. How far will it go? What are you going to do? Are you going to let it happen? How does another Russian puppet state further US policy interests?
2) The rump Ukrainian state would remain - Lvov and Kiev. What is your policy? Do we just back off and let it go the way of Belarus? Or do we replay the same game we've played in Ukraine since 2014, only with a sharply weaker hand? Why on earth would we chose that option when we have a better one today?
3) Russian armies are currently encamped on 4 Nato borders (Poland, Baltics). If the Ukrainian rump state becomes Belarus 2.0, that number rises to 7. Each one of those seven states are functioning participatory democracies. How will Russian armies on their border impact politics? Will it stiffen their resolve (ala Poland), or will it weaken it (Hungary). For sure, it will not have "no effect." Will Russian efforts to influence their elections be enhanced by their control over Ukraine and Modlova?
4) In democracies, the pendulum swings. Current regimes will be replaced. Usually, that will be by parties with different ideas. How long before we see a party with softly or harshly anti-Nato or even pro-Russian policies swing to power? Wouldn't that increase the possibility of another Maidan crisis? For sure it increases the number of countries in which such could happen to 7 instead of 3.
5) So, you are SecState. All of the above has happened. (the course is certain, if we lose in Ukraine, only the timeline is in question). One odd morning before coffee, you get the phone call from your COS that the Romanian Army has just surrounded key government buildings in Bucharest. Some general you don't remember meeting is making an announcement that new elections will be held in 90 days. What do you do?

The answer is: the very first thing you do is kick yourself in the ass for a few minutes for not stopping Russia in the Donbas.

Because, now, you have to worry about that general announcing a withdrawal from Nato. You have to worry about Russia effectively controlling elections held by the Romanan military, almost certainly electing a pro-Russian government that will announce a withdrawal from Nato. What do you do when each of those things happen? Complicating things, there will likely be an exiled Romanian regime encamped somewhere demanding Article 5 protections. (serious implications follow). Do we invade a Nato member to restore an exiled regime? Remember, how you respond will be watched with somewhat more than passing interest in Budapest, Warsaw, Bratislava, Tallin, Riga, and Vilnius. We would have no proxy to fight for us. it's a Manichean option - we either let it happen, and deal with the consequences (sharply weaked Nato) or we commit my daughter and a hundred thousand or so more sons & daughters back into the fray. All because you won the argument that we had no business helping Ukraine.

Everything I've posted is plainly known/seen to anyone with a basic knowledge of "the area" and "the business." EVERYTHING Putin has said and done for 25 years has been dedicated to that goal....the goal of getting all the former WP nations out of Nato. The main reason we haven't stopped him yet? The argument of ripeness: Oh, Russia is paper tiger. Look how hard they had to work to subdue Gozny, they said. The faulty premise with that line of reasoning is that the Russian battle plan illustrates weakness. In fact, it's the opposite. Such a plan is just the Russian MO. "We will take what we want and we don't care how many people we kill on either side, how many lives we destroy on either side, how much economic destruction we inflict on either side. If we want it, we want it worse than you and we will happily outbleed you, no matter how long it takes." That reasoning sounds hollow. Unless Russia is your neighbor.

We know that Russia ideologically rejects classical liberalism and democracy, seeing them as threats to the Russian way of life. We know Putin has repeatedly stated about return of Russian hegemony over the entire USSR footprint. Look what he's actually done about it. Consistently. A predictable as sunshine in the morning. How on earth could anyone possibly think Ukraine will satisfy them?

As long as there is a single Ukrainian willing to die for his country, we should make sure he/she never fails for lack of arms & ammo. Every day of battle degrades the Russian war machine. Every day of battle pushes out into the future the time it will take Russia to rebuild. It is borderline madness to cut off the military supply lines to Ukraine, when the consequences are uniformly negative, short and long term, to US interests and actually significantly increase the prospects of escalation.

Your policy on Ukraine is well beyond undesirable.

---

This is why countries like Romania never should have joined NATO. The dilemma you describe is a predictable result of the policies you advocate.

---

that is a very fair point.

Unfortunately, the question is "asked & answered." The decision has been made. We have a treaty obligation to defend Romania. We can't say "oh well, we shouldn't have done that in the first place." We have to honor the obligation or.....dare I say it....we confirm Zelenskyy's press conference comments about American credibility. We balk, all of Nato is a paper tiger.

---

Sure, but we're talking about two different things now. We can defend Romania if we have to. That doesn't mean our policy needs to revolve around keeping Romania in NATO. It's not as if they bring much to the table in terms of strengthening the alliance. Strategically they're one of its weakest points, along with the Baltic states.

---

Yea there are lots of good articles out there about how the expansions of 2004 brought in a lot of poor countries that don't make good NATO partners to begin with....more liabilities than assets.

Obviously the expansion in 1999 that brought in Poland, Czechia, Hungary was a decent play. Poland especially is very geo-strategically important.

The 2004 expansion antagonized Russia and was certainly not necessary. Brought in a bunch of duds like Bulgaria, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Romania. Poor countries than can not defend themselves or really contribute much of anything to NATO defense.

Poland leaving NATO would be a blow. Latvia leaving would probably be a net benefit in truth.

---

Yep, expanding NATO has provoked our opponent and weakened our own position at the same time. And the next step is to do more of the same. Brilliant bit of strategy, isn't it?

---

unforced error, counselor: It most certainly did not weaken our position. If it did, how on earth could Russia claim it as a threat?

whiterock said:

---

trey3216 said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

---

Of course he is. It is in his and Ukraine's best interest to add NATO to his defense. Why would anyone expect him not to play for NATO to enter the war???

It is up to NATO to set the parameters of support, not Zelinsky. He will take whatever support we will give, it is nave and foolish to expect otherwise. Don't see the point of Wolfe's tweet besides dramatic effect.

---

Zelensky is saying that it will absolutely happen, not that it's on the table as an option.

---

Exactly.

Ukraine can push, publicly and privately, all it wants to for Nato membership. And such will have an impact on it's foreign relationships.

NATO is not obligated by any of that. Nor has NATO made any promises. NATO is doing what NATO should, exercising strategic ambiguity....not clearly indicating whether it will or will not admit Ukraine. That complicates Russian calculations.

I don't see a likely scenario for Ukraine entering Nato. Major issues: such would ratify the Russian excuse for the war in the first place, such would put MORE Russian/Nato divisions stationed across borders from each other, such would have opposition from Nato members. I would assess Turkey as a hard NO to Ukrainian membership. Crimea and much of southern Ukraine was once either integral or vassal to the Ottoman Empire. A weak, independent Ukrainian state is far more useful to Turkey than a peer state within Nato that could count on Article 5 protections.

The forces driving this war are as old as time. Turkey, if one were to spend all night drinking raki with Erdogan, has not given up on the romantic notion of one day returning those lands to a regime enforcing sharia law, as a protectorate of Turkey. That such is impossible in any practical scenario one could devise does not mean that such romance would not have influence over policy today.

I would be extremely reluctant to admit Ukraine to NATO. Would not close the door, but would want to see a couple decades to assess the stability of the Ukrainian society. By contrast, an independent Ukraine counting on partner status with Nato is a manageable scenario with limited short-term downside. A Ukrainian state careening between pro-West and pro-Russian factions is only a problem if that state is already a NATO ally. Nato has never had a scenario where undemocratic actions inside a member state has threatened to fracture the alliance. We should not court such a scenario by admitting unstable partners, particularly not when Russian armies are waiting to come to the aid of a country that has undemocratically chosen to withraw from Nato. The problems are myriad: Do we attack a Nato state to return them to an alliance? Do we invoke Article 5 on behalf of a regime in exile to fight to expel Russian troops from a Nato state which has invited them in? We did that in WWII. Do we do it today? Hard choices. Which are best avoided by winning the current conflict.

the size of Nato makes in virtually invulnerable to military attack.
the size of Nato makes it HIGHLY vulnerable to 5th column actions.

Ergo the need to keep Russian armies in Russia.......

---

Ukraine can join NATO under 1 and only 1 condition….they need total victory in their war versus Russia.

Why?

Because Russia needs to be humiliated. Russia needs a face check in modern global affairs both politically and economically. Russia needs to understand that its long suffering, mafioso tactics have no business in an integrated world. That expansion by force is not a policy. That screaming Nazi at people you don't like (but oh so desperately want their land and for them to be integrated into your nation once you take it) is not a way of life, especially when you're acting as the Nazi in this scenario.

Then, and only then, can Ukraine be a part of NATO, because it won't matter if they're in nato anymore once Russia decides they don't want to be the heel

---

Ukraine can join NATO anytime two conditions are met: It applies, and Nato accepts. Nato is most certainly not going to accept Ukraine while it is engaged in a very hot war with Russia, as such would be a patent declaration of war against Russia. Ukraine knows this. That's why Ukraine is begging for arms & ammo from Nato countries. Ukraine can win the war if fully supplied.

---

It is not a simple matter to just supply. NATO weapon systems require training. You can't just put 4 armored crewmen in a M1, let alone a battalion, and expect them to engage T-90s. That is not even considering the supply and maintenance to support that battalion. To make a dent, you are talking brigades. That is a generational change! To do it on the fly with a hodgepodge combination of Leopards, Challengers and M1s? You will need armor to dislodge Russia, infantry and artillery can only do so much against armor columns, especially since Russia owns the air space.

I would imagine aircraft are worse. F16s take 9 months to train on the aircraft alone, not even considering operating in echelon to create an effect.


I am all for supporting Ukraine, but it has to be done in a sustainable, realistic manner.

Redbrickbear said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

I won't abandon Sanity.

I won't lie to sell my position.

I won't ignore the deaths of innocents in the name of politics.

Some here have done so, it appears.

---

You also won't identify how letting Russia annex all/part of Ukraine is preferable to the current situation.

---

Since I oppose Putin's invasion, of course I do not consider that acceptable. Have you ignored all my prior posts?

---

The peace argument for this war is quite weaker than most.

Putin's policy is quite clear, consistent, in both statement and deed. He is going to keep coming westward, with columns armored and fifth, until the Baltics, Poland, Slovakia, Hungary, and Romania are no longer members in Nato. The only question is time...

---

Come on...you can not possibly know that.

Not to mention any invasion, attack, aggression against any NATO state means war with the USA-UK-France-Germany.

Russia of course would be wiped out in such a war.

There is no rational world were we see Russian troop watering their horses in the Danube river.

This statement of "we must stop Russia in Donbas (where the people are ethnic Russians) before they reach Poland or Hungary" is just classic pro-war propaganda.

Hungary (long under the Soviet boot) is the lone voice of peace out there in Europe right now. They are not afraid that Russia is going to come for them next.

If the Hungarians are not afraid why should beltway boomers in D.C. be afraid?

If anything this war against Ukraine as given NATO a new lease on life.

---

How can you possibly ignore that? Beyond the patent weak-man argument of the remaining post, to suggest that we cannot make sound assessments, given Russian intentions and capabilities and MO, shows profound lack of understanding of history and foreign affairs.

Here's a scenario: Ukraine falls. Russia annexes everything east of the Dnieper, and the Ukrainian coast all the way to the Romanian and Moldovan borders. That was the manifest intent of their invasion. If/when that happens, the implications are:
1) Russia now has a supply chain to Transnistria, where a Donbas-type insurgency is underway as we argue. The ability to directly supply the Russian separatists by land means Russia effectively owns Moldova, given the relative size of Transnistria to the Moldovan state. Moldova cannot stop Russia. It immediately becomes a Russian puppet state, unless the West responds with support for the existing government, creating exactly the same dynamic as developed in Ukraine 2010-2022. How far will it go? What are you going to do? Are you going to let it happen? How does another Russian puppet state further US policy interests?
2) The rump Ukrainian state would remain - Lvov and Kiev. What is your policy? Do we just back off and let it go the way of Belarus? Or do we replay the same game we've played in Ukraine since 2014, only with a sharply weaker hand? Why on earth would we chose that option when we have a better one today?
3) Russian armies are currently encamped on 4 Nato borders (Poland, Baltics). If the Ukrainian rump state becomes Belarus 2.0, that number rises to 7. Each one of those seven states are functioning participatory democracies. How will Russian armies on their border impact politics? Will it stiffen their resolve (ala Poland), or will it weaken it (Hungary). For sure, it will not have "no effect." Will Russian efforts to influence their elections be enhanced by their control over Ukraine and Modlova?
4) In democracies, the pendulum swings. Current regimes will be replaced. Usually, that will be by parties with different ideas. How long before we see a party with softly or harshly anti-Nato or even pro-Russian policies swing to power? Wouldn't that increase the possibility of another Maidan crisis? For sure it increases the number of countries in which such could happen to 7 instead of 3.
5) So, you are SecState. All of the above has happened. (the course is certain, if we lose in Ukraine, only the timeline is in question). One odd morning before coffee, you get the phone call from your COS that the Romanian Army has just surrounded key government buildings in Bucharest. Some general you don't remember meeting is making an announcement that new elections will be held in 90 days. What do you do?

The answer is: the very first thing you do is kick yourself in the ass for a few minutes for not stopping Russia in the Donbas.

Because, now, you have to worry about that general announcing a withdrawal from Nato. You have to worry about Russia effectively controlling elections held by the Romanan military, almost certainly electing a pro-Russian government that will announce a withdrawal from Nato. What do you do when each of those things happen? Complicating things, there will likely be an exiled Romanian regime encamped somewhere demanding Article 5 protections. (serious implications follow). Do we invade a Nato member to restore an exiled regime? Remember, how you respond will be watched with somewhat more than passing interest in Budapest, Warsaw, Bratislava, Tallin, Riga, and Vilnius. We would have no proxy to fight for us. it's a Manichean option - we either let it happen, and deal with the consequences (sharply weaked Nato) or we commit my daughter and a hundred thousand or so more sons & daughters back into the fray. All because you won the argument that we had no business helping Ukraine.

Everything I've posted is plainly known/seen to anyone with a basic knowledge of "the area" and "the business." EVERYTHING Putin has said and done for 25 years has been dedicated to that goal....the goal of getting all the former WP nations out of Nato. The main reason we haven't stopped him yet? The argument of ripeness: Oh, Russia is paper tiger. Look how hard they had to work to subdue Gozny, they said. The faulty premise with that line of reasoning is that the Russian battle plan illustrates weakness. In fact, it's the opposite. Such a plan is just the Russian MO. "We will take what we want and we don't care how many people we kill on either side, how many lives we destroy on either side, how much economic destruction we inflict on either side. If we want it, we want it worse than you and we will happily outbleed you, no matter how long it takes." That reasoning sounds hollow. Unless Russia is your neighbor.

We know that Russia ideologically rejects classical liberalism and democracy, seeing them as threats to the Russian way of life. We know Putin has repeatedly stated about return of Russian hegemony over the entire USSR footprint. Look what he's actually done about it. Consistently. A predictable as sunshine in the morning. How on earth could anyone possibly think Ukraine will satisfy them?

As long as there is a single Ukrainian willing to die for his country, we should make sure he/she never fails for lack of arms & ammo. Every day of battle degrades the Russian war machine. Every day of battle pushes out into the future the time it will take Russia to rebuild. It is borderline madness to cut off the military supply lines to Ukraine, when the consequences are uniformly negative, short and long term, to US interests and actually significantly increase the prospects of escalation.

Your policy on Ukraine is well beyond undesirable.

---

This is why countries like Romania never should have joined NATO. The dilemma you describe is a predictable result of the policies you advocate.

---

that is a very fair point.

Unfortunately, the question is "asked & answered." The decision has been made. We have a treaty obligation to defend Romania. We can't say "oh well, we shouldn't have done that in the first place." We have to honor the obligation or.....dare I say it....we confirm Zelenskyy's press conference comments about American credibility. We balk, all of Nato is a paper tiger.

---

Sure, but we're talking about two different things now. We can defend Romania if we have to. That doesn't mean our policy needs to revolve around keeping Romania in NATO. It's not as if they bring much to the table in terms of strengthening the alliance. Strategically they're one of its weakest points, along with the Baltic states.

---

yes, but....

A) have we ever had a departure from Nato?
and
B) how that departure happens is a very important thing.
and
C) any departure is a loss for the alliance. A Russian client state in Romania opens up the slavic parts of the Balkans to Donbas/Transnistria type nonense, which proliferates problems for all the remaining members.
and
D) see above about avoiding all that by just winning the damned proxy war we're in right now.

There is no upside to not winning.......

---

Romania is on the Euro and deeply integrated with the EU. They also see Ukraine and want nothing to do with Russia.

They are not going anywhere.

In fact they want more NATO troops in country....for both protection and for the money service members spend.

https://www.euractiv.com/section/politics/short_news/romania-wants-increased-nato-and-us-presence-on-its-territory/

Little Ireland (5 million pop.) contributes more to the EU economy than all of Romania (pop. 19 million)

https://www.statista.com/statistics/316691/eu-budget-contributions-by-country/

They are a free rider on both the EU and NATO...and they are smart enough to realize they have a very good thing going.

---

Your analysis is sound up to the day Romania sees 60k Russian troops stationed in Odessa and Nato STILL refusing to station troops in Romania. (I mean, we've never stationed permanently any NATO troops in the former WP countries, in deference to Russia, to not antagonize Russia. Do we really think those same NATO members who've thought that way thus far are going to decide NOW to forward deploy troops to those countries? ) The failure to do so thus far is a statement. The failure to do that now or in the future also makes a statement. Neither statement will inspire confidence in Romania that they can count on Nato to prevent the conflict from starting. And remember the true lesson of the Russo-Ukrainian war = the cost of victory against Russia exceeds the capability of any of the former WP nations to bear alone.

The moment the Russians garrison troops and ships in Odessa, Romanian options are not longer solely about what they want to do. They now have to counterbalance every decision against how Moscow will react. Being intransigently pro-Nato has risks, for the country and for each politician. The pro-Nato leaders will, best case, go to the gulag when Russia restores hegemony.

This is why Russia wants to gain Ukraine back. It wants to increase its leverage in formerly controlled lands. Every mile its armies moves closer, that leverage increases.

How does allowing Russian influence in Romana to expand augur the to benefit of US interests?

whiterock said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

I won't abandon Sanity.

I won't lie to sell my position.

I won't ignore the deaths of innocents in the name of politics.

Some here have done so, it appears.

---

You also won't identify how letting Russia annex all/part of Ukraine is preferable to the current situation.

---

Since I oppose Putin's invasion, of course I do not consider that acceptable. Have you ignored all my prior posts?

---

The peace argument for this war is quite weaker than most.

Putin's policy is quite clear, consistent, in both statement and deed. He is going to keep coming westward, with columns armored and fifth, until the Baltics, Poland, Slovakia, Hungary, and Romania are no longer members in Nato. The only question is time...

---

Come on...you can not possibly know that.

Not to mention any invasion, attack, aggression against any NATO state means war with the USA-UK-France-Germany.

Russia of course would be wiped out in such a war.

There is no rational world were we see Russian troop watering their horses in the Danube river.

This statement of "we must stop Russia in Donbas (where the people are ethnic Russians) before they reach Poland or Hungary" is just classic pro-war propaganda.

Hungary (long under the Soviet boot) is the lone voice of peace out there in Europe right now. They are not afraid that Russia is going to come for them next.

If the Hungarians are not afraid why should beltway boomers in D.C. be afraid?

If anything this war against Ukraine as given NATO a new lease on life.

---

How can you possibly ignore that? Beyond the patent weak-man argument of the remaining post, to suggest that we cannot make sound assessments, given Russian intentions and capabilities and MO, shows profound lack of understanding of history and foreign affairs.

Here's a scenario: Ukraine falls. Russia annexes everything east of the Dnieper, and the Ukrainian coast all the way to the Romanian and Moldovan borders. That was the manifest intent of their invasion. If/when that happens, the implications are:
1) Russia now has a supply chain to Transnistria, where a Donbas-type insurgency is underway as we argue. The ability to directly supply the Russian separatists by land means Russia effectively owns Moldova, given the relative size of Transnistria to the Moldovan state. Moldova cannot stop Russia. It immediately becomes a Russian puppet state, unless the West responds with support for the existing government, creating exactly the same dynamic as developed in Ukraine 2010-2022. How far will it go? What are you going to do? Are you going to let it happen? How does another Russian puppet state further US policy interests?
2) The rump Ukrainian state would remain - Lvov and Kiev. What is your policy? Do we just back off and let it go the way of Belarus? Or do we replay the same game we've played in Ukraine since 2014, only with a sharply weaker hand? Why on earth would we chose that option when we have a better one today?
3) Russian armies are currently encamped on 4 Nato borders (Poland, Baltics). If the Ukrainian rump state becomes Belarus 2.0, that number rises to 7. Each one of those seven states are functioning participatory democracies. How will Russian armies on their border impact politics? Will it stiffen their resolve (ala Poland), or will it weaken it (Hungary). For sure, it will not have "no effect." Will Russian efforts to influence their elections be enhanced by their control over Ukraine and Modlova?
4) In democracies, the pendulum swings. Current regimes will be replaced. Usually, that will be by parties with different ideas. How long before we see a party with softly or harshly anti-Nato or even pro-Russian policies swing to power? Wouldn't that increase the possibility of another Maidan crisis? For sure it increases the number of countries in which such could happen to 7 instead of 3.
5) So, you are SecState. All of the above has happened. (the course is certain, if we lose in Ukraine, only the timeline is in question). One odd morning before coffee, you get the phone call from your COS that the Romanian Army has just surrounded key government buildings in Bucharest. Some general you don't remember meeting is making an announcement that new elections will be held in 90 days. What do you do?

The answer is: the very first thing you do is kick yourself in the ass for a few minutes for not stopping Russia in the Donbas.

Because, now, you have to worry about that general announcing a withdrawal from Nato. You have to worry about Russia effectively controlling elections held by the Romanan military, almost certainly electing a pro-Russian government that will announce a withdrawal from Nato. What do you do when each of those things happen? Complicating things, there will likely be an exiled Romanian regime encamped somewhere demanding Article 5 protections. (serious implications follow). Do we invade a Nato member to restore an exiled regime? Remember, how you respond will be watched with somewhat more than passing interest in Budapest, Warsaw, Bratislava, Tallin, Riga, and Vilnius. We would have no proxy to fight for us. it's a Manichean option - we either let it happen, and deal with the consequences (sharply weaked Nato) or we commit my daughter and a hundred thousand or so more sons & daughters back into the fray. All because you won the argument that we had no business helping Ukraine.

Everything I've posted is plainly known/seen to anyone with a basic knowledge of "the area" and "the business." EVERYTHING Putin has said and done for 25 years has been dedicated to that goal....the goal of getting all the former WP nations out of Nato. The main reason we haven't stopped him yet? The argument of ripeness: Oh, Russia is paper tiger. Look how hard they had to work to subdue Gozny, they said. The faulty premise with that line of reasoning is that the Russian battle plan illustrates weakness. In fact, it's the opposite. Such a plan is just the Russian MO. "We will take what we want and we don't care how many people we kill on either side, how many lives we destroy on either side, how much economic destruction we inflict on either side. If we want it, we want it worse than you and we will happily outbleed you, no matter how long it takes." That reasoning sounds hollow. Unless Russia is your neighbor.

We know that Russia ideologically rejects classical liberalism and democracy, seeing them as threats to the Russian way of life. We know Putin has repeatedly stated about return of Russian hegemony over the entire USSR footprint. Look what he's actually done about it. Consistently. A predictable as sunshine in the morning. How on earth could anyone possibly think Ukraine will satisfy them?

As long as there is a single Ukrainian willing to die for his country, we should make sure he/she never fails for lack of arms & ammo. Every day of battle degrades the Russian war machine. Every day of battle pushes out into the future the time it will take Russia to rebuild. It is borderline madness to cut off the military supply lines to Ukraine, when the consequences are uniformly negative, short and long term, to US interests and actually significantly increase the prospects of escalation.

Your policy on Ukraine is well beyond undesirable.

---

This is why countries like Romania never should have joined NATO. The dilemma you describe is a predictable result of the policies you advocate.

---

that is a very fair point.

Unfortunately, the question is "asked & answered." The decision has been made. We have a treaty obligation to defend Romania. We can't say "oh well, we shouldn't have done that in the first place." We have to honor the obligation or.....dare I say it....we confirm Zelenskyy's press conference comments about American credibility. We balk, all of Nato is a paper tiger.

---

Sure, but we're talking about two different things now. We can defend Romania if we have to. That doesn't mean our policy needs to revolve around keeping Romania in NATO. It's not as if they bring much to the table in terms of strengthening the alliance. Strategically they're one of its weakest points, along with the Baltic states.

---

yes, but....

A) have we ever had a departure from Nato?
and
B) how that departure happens is a very important thing.
and
C) any departure is a loss for the alliance. A Russian client state in Romania opens up the slavic parts of the Balkans to Donbas/Transnistria type nonense, which proliferates problems for all the remaining members.
and
D) see above about avoiding all that by just winning the damned proxy war we're in right now.

There is no upside to not winning.......

---

Romania is on the Euro and deeply integrated with the EU. They also see Ukraine and want nothing to do with Russia.

They are not going anywhere.

In fact they want more NATO troops in country....for both protection and for the money service members spend.

https://www.euractiv.com/section/politics/short_news/romania-wants-increased-nato-and-us-presence-on-its-territory/

Little Ireland (5 million pop.) contributes more to the EU economy than all of Romania (pop. 19 million)

https://www.statista.com/statistics/316691/eu-budget-contributions-by-country/

They are a free rider on both the EU and NATO...and they are smart enough to realize they have a very good thing going.

---

Your analysis is sound up to the day Romania sees 60k Russian troops stationed in Odessa and Nato STILL refusing to station troops in Romania. (I mean, we've never stationed permanently any NATO troops in the former WP countries, in deference to Russia, to not antagonize Russia. Do we really think those same NATO members who've thought that way thus far are going to decide NOW to forward deploy troops to those countries? ) The failure to do so thus far is a statement. The failure to do that now or in the future also makes a statement. Neither statement will inspire confidence in Romania that they can count on Nato to prevent the conflict from starting. And remember the true lesson of the Russo-Ukrainian war = the cost of victory against Russia exceeds the capability of any of the former WP nations to bear alone.

The moment the Russians garrison troops and ships in Odessa, Romanian options are not longer solely about what they want to do. They now have to counterbalance every decision against how Moscow will react. Being intransigently pro-Nato has risks, for the country and for each politician. The pro-Nato leaders will, best case, go to the gulag when Russia restores hegemony.

This is why Russia wants to gain Ukraine back. It wants to increase its leverage in formerly controlled lands. Every mile its armies moves closer, that leverage increases.

How does allowing Russian influence in Romana to expand augur the to benefit of US interests?

---

We have never stationed them in former WP, true. But, this Ukraine move is changing that thinking. Antagonize Russia? THey are invading. Poland is screaming for NATO troops, even saying if Germany doesn't want them they will take them! They wanted our Heavy's that Obama and Trump pulled out. Russia threatens a NATO nation, all bets are off.

The Nation I worry about leaving is Turkey, they have never been a fit.

US and NATO interests is for Russia to stay out of Ukraine. I think those worrying about the North (Finland, Sweden and Baltics) are wrong. Russia will go South to the Black Sea where it has more support from Georgia, Chechnya and even Iran, further from NATO's heart. If they start going into Romania, Moldova, and Bulgaria it will put pressure on Turkey and move the battle from NATO's strengths...

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

I won't abandon Sanity.

I won't lie to sell my position.

I won't ignore the deaths of innocents in the name of politics.

Some here have done so, it appears.

---

You also won't identify how letting Russia annex all/part of Ukraine is preferable to the current situation.

---

Since I oppose Putin's invasion, of course I do not consider that acceptable. Have you ignored all my prior posts?

---

The peace argument for this war is quite weaker than most.

Putin's policy is quite clear, consistent, in both statement and deed. He is going to keep coming westward, with columns armored and fifth, until the Baltics, Poland, Slovakia, Hungary, and Romania are no longer members in Nato. The only question is time...

---

Come on...you can not possibly know that.

Not to mention any invasion, attack, aggression against any NATO state means war with the USA-UK-France-Germany.

Russia of course would be wiped out in such a war.

There is no rational world were we see Russian troop watering their horses in the Danube river.

This statement of "we must stop Russia in Donbas (where the people are ethnic Russians) before they reach Poland or Hungary" is just classic pro-war propaganda.

Hungary (long under the Soviet boot) is the lone voice of peace out there in Europe right now. They are not afraid that Russia is going to come for them next.

If the Hungarians are not afraid why should beltway boomers in D.C. be afraid?

If anything this war against Ukraine as given NATO a new lease on life.

---

How can you possibly ignore that? Beyond the patent weak-man argument of the remaining post, to suggest that we cannot make sound assessments, given Russian intentions and capabilities and MO, shows profound lack of understanding of history and foreign affairs.

Here's a scenario: Ukraine falls. Russia annexes everything east of the Dnieper, and the Ukrainian coast all the way to the Romanian and Moldovan borders. That was the manifest intent of their invasion. If/when that happens, the implications are:
1) Russia now has a supply chain to Transnistria, where a Donbas-type insurgency is underway as we argue. The ability to directly supply the Russian separatists by land means Russia effectively owns Moldova, given the relative size of Transnistria to the Moldovan state. Moldova cannot stop Russia. It immediately becomes a Russian puppet state, unless the West responds with support for the existing government, creating exactly the same dynamic as developed in Ukraine 2010-2022. How far will it go? What are you going to do? Are you going to let it happen? How does another Russian puppet state further US policy interests?
2) The rump Ukrainian state would remain - Lvov and Kiev. What is your policy? Do we just back off and let it go the way of Belarus? Or do we replay the same game we've played in Ukraine since 2014, only with a sharply weaker hand? Why on earth would we chose that option when we have a better one today?
3) Russian armies are currently encamped on 4 Nato borders (Poland, Baltics). If the Ukrainian rump state becomes Belarus 2.0, that number rises to 7. Each one of those seven states are functioning participatory democracies. How will Russian armies on their border impact politics? Will it stiffen their resolve (ala Poland), or will it weaken it (Hungary). For sure, it will not have "no effect." Will Russian efforts to influence their elections be enhanced by their control over Ukraine and Modlova?
4) In democracies, the pendulum swings. Current regimes will be replaced. Usually, that will be by parties with different ideas. How long before we see a party with softly or harshly anti-Nato or even pro-Russian policies swing to power? Wouldn't that increase the possibility of another Maidan crisis? For sure it increases the number of countries in which such could happen to 7 instead of 3.
5) So, you are SecState. All of the above has happened. (the course is certain, if we lose in Ukraine, only the timeline is in question). One odd morning before coffee, you get the phone call from your COS that the Romanian Army has just surrounded key government buildings in Bucharest. Some general you don't remember meeting is making an announcement that new elections will be held in 90 days. What do you do?

The answer is: the very first thing you do is kick yourself in the ass for a few minutes for not stopping Russia in the Donbas.

Because, now, you have to worry about that general announcing a withdrawal from Nato. You have to worry about Russia effectively controlling elections held by the Romanan military, almost certainly electing a pro-Russian government that will announce a withdrawal from Nato. What do you do when each of those things happen? Complicating things, there will likely be an exiled Romanian regime encamped somewhere demanding Article 5 protections. (serious implications follow). Do we invade a Nato member to restore an exiled regime? Remember, how you respond will be watched with somewhat more than passing interest in Budapest, Warsaw, Bratislava, Tallin, Riga, and Vilnius. We would have no proxy to fight for us. it's a Manichean option - we either let it happen, and deal with the consequences (sharply weaked Nato) or we commit my daughter and a hundred thousand or so more sons & daughters back into the fray. All because you won the argument that we had no business helping Ukraine.

Everything I've posted is plainly known/seen to anyone with a basic knowledge of "the area" and "the business." EVERYTHING Putin has said and done for 25 years has been dedicated to that goal....the goal of getting all the former WP nations out of Nato. The main reason we haven't stopped him yet? The argument of ripeness: Oh, Russia is paper tiger. Look how hard they had to work to subdue Gozny, they said. The faulty premise with that line of reasoning is that the Russian battle plan illustrates weakness. In fact, it's the opposite. Such a plan is just the Russian MO. "We will take what we want and we don't care how many people we kill on either side, how many lives we destroy on either side, how much economic destruction we inflict on either side. If we want it, we want it worse than you and we will happily outbleed you, no matter how long it takes." That reasoning sounds hollow. Unless Russia is your neighbor.

We know that Russia ideologically rejects classical liberalism and democracy, seeing them as threats to the Russian way of life. We know Putin has repeatedly stated about return of Russian hegemony over the entire USSR footprint. Look what he's actually done about it. Consistently. A predictable as sunshine in the morning. How on earth could anyone possibly think Ukraine will satisfy them?

As long as there is a single Ukrainian willing to die for his country, we should make sure he/she never fails for lack of arms & ammo. Every day of battle degrades the Russian war machine. Every day of battle pushes out into the future the time it will take Russia to rebuild. It is borderline madness to cut off the military supply lines to Ukraine, when the consequences are uniformly negative, short and long term, to US interests and actually significantly increase the prospects of escalation.

Your policy on Ukraine is well beyond undesirable.

---

This is why countries like Romania never should have joined NATO. The dilemma you describe is a predictable result of the policies you advocate.

---

I can't imagine why any nascent country freeing itself from the thumb of its oppressor would be interested in protecting itself from becoming under its thumb again by forces it couldn't defeat alone….

These are such poor takes.

---

Duh. It's obvious why they wanted to join. Much less obvious why they were allowed to.

RMF5630 said:

---

whiterock said:

---

trey3216 said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

---

Of course he is. It is in his and Ukraine's best interest to add NATO to his defense. Why would anyone expect him not to play for NATO to enter the war???

It is up to NATO to set the parameters of support, not Zelinsky. He will take whatever support we will give, it is nave and foolish to expect otherwise. Don't see the point of Wolfe's tweet besides dramatic effect.

---

Zelensky is saying that it will absolutely happen, not that it's on the table as an option.

---

Exactly.

Ukraine can push, publicly and privately, all it wants to for Nato membership. And such will have an impact on it's foreign relationships.

NATO is not obligated by any of that. Nor has NATO made any promises. NATO is doing what NATO should, exercising strategic ambiguity....not clearly indicating whether it will or will not admit Ukraine. That complicates Russian calculations.

I don't see a likely scenario for Ukraine entering Nato. Major issues: such would ratify the Russian excuse for the war in the first place, such would put MORE Russian/Nato divisions stationed across borders from each other, such would have opposition from Nato members. I would assess Turkey as a hard NO to Ukrainian membership. Crimea and much of southern Ukraine was once either integral or vassal to the Ottoman Empire. A weak, independent Ukrainian state is far more useful to Turkey than a peer state within Nato that could count on Article 5 protections.

The forces driving this war are as old as time. Turkey, if one were to spend all night drinking raki with Erdogan, has not given up on the romantic notion of one day returning those lands to a regime enforcing sharia law, as a protectorate of Turkey. That such is impossible in any practical scenario one could devise does not mean that such romance would not have influence over policy today.

I would be extremely reluctant to admit Ukraine to NATO. Would not close the door, but would want to see a couple decades to assess the stability of the Ukrainian society. By contrast, an independent Ukraine counting on partner status with Nato is a manageable scenario with limited short-term downside. A Ukrainian state careening between pro-West and pro-Russian factions is only a problem if that state is already a NATO ally. Nato has never had a scenario where undemocratic actions inside a member state has threatened to fracture the alliance. We should not court such a scenario by admitting unstable partners, particularly not when Russian armies are waiting to come to the aid of a country that has undemocratically chosen to withraw from Nato. The problems are myriad: Do we attack a Nato state to return them to an alliance? Do we invoke Article 5 on behalf of a regime in exile to fight to expel Russian troops from a Nato state which has invited them in? We did that in WWII. Do we do it today? Hard choices. Which are best avoided by winning the current conflict.

the size of Nato makes in virtually invulnerable to military attack.
the size of Nato makes it HIGHLY vulnerable to 5th column actions.

Ergo the need to keep Russian armies in Russia.......

---

Ukraine can join NATO under 1 and only 1 condition….they need total victory in their war versus Russia.

Why?

Because Russia needs to be humiliated. Russia needs a face check in modern global affairs both politically and economically. Russia needs to understand that its long suffering, mafioso tactics have no business in an integrated world. That expansion by force is not a policy. That screaming Nazi at people you don't like (but oh so desperately want their land and for them to be integrated into your nation once you take it) is not a way of life, especially when you're acting as the Nazi in this scenario.

Then, and only then, can Ukraine be a part of NATO, because it won't matter if they're in nato anymore once Russia decides they don't want to be the heel

---

Ukraine can join NATO anytime two conditions are met: It applies, and Nato accepts. Nato is most certainly not going to accept Ukraine while it is engaged in a very hot war with Russia, as such would be a patent declaration of war against Russia. Ukraine knows this. That's why Ukraine is begging for arms & ammo from Nato countries. Ukraine can win the war if fully supplied.

---

It is not a simple matter to just supply. NATO weapon systems require training. You can't just put 4 armored crewmen in a M1, let alone a battalion, and expect them to engage T-90s. That is not even considering the supply and maintenance to support that battalion. To make a dent, you are talking brigades. That is a generational change! To do it on the fly with a hodgepodge combination of Leopards, Challengers and M1s? You will need armor to dislodge Russia, infantry and artillery can only do so much against armor columns, especially since Russia owns the air space.

I would imagine aircraft are worse. F16s take 9 months to train on the aircraft alone, not even considering operating in echelon to create an effect.


I am all for supporting Ukraine, but it has to be done in a sustainable, realistic manner.

---

There are still 47 Russian-made,figher/bomber jet aircraft in Polish inventory. Romania has 21. Slovakia has 11. That's 79 airframes, that those three nations struggle to maintain, some key parts unavailable. Better to transfer them to die in combat defending Western interests than collect dust in a scrapyard somewhere. Ukraine can cannibalize them for parts and get at least 50 jets back in the air very quickly. Some within days. Whatever argument can be made about the limitations in time & capability such would afford, it is better than letting them rust on the ground next door.

We have been training crews on M1s and Leopards for months. Yes, they are supposed to be operating in brigades. Yes, they will not be as fully trained as a western crew. But we are a year into the war. It has turned desultory in no small part because there are no full-strength tank brigades on either side. The numbers being provided, all types, exceed a tank brigade. That gives us 75% capable (training limitations) tank brigade with logistical limitations, to punch thru from Bakhmut to the Sea of Azov 102 miles away.

After the first 40 miles, the Azov coast would be in range of Himars batteries.
And 50 Ukrainian jets in the air would deny Russia air control over that line of advance for a period of time.
A 102 mile armored advance is achievable.
The Russian troops on the entire right flank of the Ukrainan advance would be cut off from primary supply lines.

This is not a high risk proposition we're talking about, given that we are well down inside the malestrom of war, where the orders of battle have a lot more to do with what IS on hand matters a lot more than what the textbooks say SHOULD be on hand...

whiterock said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

whiterock said:

---

You also won't identify how letting Russia annex all/part of Ukraine is preferable to the current situation.

---

Since I oppose Putin's invasion, of course I do not consider that acceptable. Have you ignored all my prior posts?

---

The peace argument for this war is quite weaker than most.

Putin's policy is quite clear, consistent, in both statement and deed. He is going to keep coming westward, with columns armored and fifth, until the Baltics, Poland, Slovakia, Hungary, and Romania are no longer members in Nato. The only question is time...

---

Come on...you can not possibly know that.

Not to mention any invasion, attack, aggression against any NATO state means war with the USA-UK-France-Germany.

Russia of course would be wiped out in such a war.

There is no rational world were we see Russian troop watering their horses in the Danube river.

This statement of "we must stop Russia in Donbas (where the people are ethnic Russians) before they reach Poland or Hungary" is just classic pro-war propaganda.

Hungary (long under the Soviet boot) is the lone voice of peace out there in Europe right now. They are not afraid that Russia is going to come for them next.

If the Hungarians are not afraid why should beltway boomers in D.C. be afraid?

If anything this war against Ukraine as given NATO a new lease on life.

---

How can you possibly ignore that? Beyond the patent weak-man argument of the remaining post, to suggest that we cannot make sound assessments, given Russian intentions and capabilities and MO, shows profound lack of understanding of history and foreign affairs.

Here's a scenario: Ukraine falls. Russia annexes everything east of the Dnieper, and the Ukrainian coast all the way to the Romanian and Moldovan borders. That was the manifest intent of their invasion. If/when that happens, the implications are:
1) Russia now has a supply chain to Transnistria, where a Donbas-type insurgency is underway as we argue. The ability to directly supply the Russian separatists by land means Russia effectively owns Moldova, given the relative size of Transnistria to the Moldovan state. Moldova cannot stop Russia. It immediately becomes a Russian puppet state, unless the West responds with support for the existing government, creating exactly the same dynamic as developed in Ukraine 2010-2022. How far will it go? What are you going to do? Are you going to let it happen? How does another Russian puppet state further US policy interests?
2) The rump Ukrainian state would remain - Lvov and Kiev. What is your policy? Do we just back off and let it go the way of Belarus? Or do we replay the same game we've played in Ukraine since 2014, only with a sharply weaker hand? Why on earth would we chose that option when we have a better one today?
3) Russian armies are currently encamped on 4 Nato borders (Poland, Baltics). If the Ukrainian rump state becomes Belarus 2.0, that number rises to 7. Each one of those seven states are functioning participatory democracies. How will Russian armies on their border impact politics? Will it stiffen their resolve (ala Poland), or will it weaken it (Hungary). For sure, it will not have "no effect." Will Russian efforts to influence their elections be enhanced by their control over Ukraine and Modlova?
4) In democracies, the pendulum swings. Current regimes will be replaced. Usually, that will be by parties with different ideas. How long before we see a party with softly or harshly anti-Nato or even pro-Russian policies swing to power? Wouldn't that increase the possibility of another Maidan crisis? For sure it increases the number of countries in which such could happen to 7 instead of 3.
5) So, you are SecState. All of the above has happened. (the course is certain, if we lose in Ukraine, only the timeline is in question). One odd morning before coffee, you get the phone call from your COS that the Romanian Army has just surrounded key government buildings in Bucharest. Some general you don't remember meeting is making an announcement that new elections will be held in 90 days. What do you do?

The answer is: the very first thing you do is kick yourself in the ass for a few minutes for not stopping Russia in the Donbas.

Because, now, you have to worry about that general announcing a withdrawal from Nato. You have to worry about Russia effectively controlling elections held by the Romanan military, almost certainly electing a pro-Russian government that will announce a withdrawal from Nato. What do you do when each of those things happen? Complicating things, there will likely be an exiled Romanian regime encamped somewhere demanding Article 5 protections. (serious implications follow). Do we invade a Nato member to restore an exiled regime? Remember, how you respond will be watched with somewhat more than passing interest in Budapest, Warsaw, Bratislava, Tallin, Riga, and Vilnius. We would have no proxy to fight for us. it's a Manichean option - we either let it happen, and deal with the consequences (sharply weaked Nato) or we commit my daughter and a hundred thousand or so more sons & daughters back into the fray. All because you won the argument that we had no business helping Ukraine.

Everything I've posted is plainly known/seen to anyone with a basic knowledge of "the area" and "the business." EVERYTHING Putin has said and done for 25 years has been dedicated to that goal....the goal of getting all the former WP nations out of Nato. The main reason we haven't stopped him yet? The argument of ripeness: Oh, Russia is paper tiger. Look how hard they had to work to subdue Gozny, they said. The faulty premise with that line of reasoning is that the Russian battle plan illustrates weakness. In fact, it's the opposite. Such a plan is just the Russian MO. "We will take what we want and we don't care how many people we kill on either side, how many lives we destroy on either side, how much economic destruction we inflict on either side. If we want it, we want it worse than you and we will happily outbleed you, no matter how long it takes." That reasoning sounds hollow. Unless Russia is your neighbor.

We know that Russia ideologically rejects classical liberalism and democracy, seeing them as threats to the Russian way of life. We know Putin has repeatedly stated about return of Russian hegemony over the entire USSR footprint. Look what he's actually done about it. Consistently. A predictable as sunshine in the morning. How on earth could anyone possibly think Ukraine will satisfy them?

As long as there is a single Ukrainian willing to die for his country, we should make sure he/she never fails for lack of arms & ammo. Every day of battle degrades the Russian war machine. Every day of battle pushes out into the future the time it will take Russia to rebuild. It is borderline madness to cut off the military supply lines to Ukraine, when the consequences are uniformly negative, short and long term, to US interests and actually significantly increase the prospects of escalation.

Your policy on Ukraine is well beyond undesirable.

---

This is why countries like Romania never should have joined NATO. The dilemma you describe is a predictable result of the policies you advocate.

---

that is a very fair point.

Unfortunately, the question is "asked & answered." The decision has been made. We have a treaty obligation to defend Romania. We can't say "oh well, we shouldn't have done that in the first place." We have to honor the obligation or.....dare I say it....we confirm Zelenskyy's press conference comments about American credibility. We balk, all of Nato is a paper tiger.

---

Sure, but we're talking about two different things now. We can defend Romania if we have to. That doesn't mean our policy needs to revolve around keeping Romania in NATO. It's not as if they bring much to the table in terms of strengthening the alliance. Strategically they're one of its weakest points, along with the Baltic states.

---

yes, but....

A) have we ever had a departure from Nato?
and
B) how that departure happens is a very important thing.
and
C) any departure is a loss for the alliance. A Russian client state in Romania opens up the slavic parts of the Balkans to Donbas/Transnistria type nonense, which proliferates problems for all the remaining members.
and
D) see above about avoiding all that by just winning the damned proxy war we're in right now.

There is no upside to not winning.......

---

We've been "avoiding" war by instigating war for as long as I can remember. If our policy is that we can have client states but Russia can't, we're never going to avoid war.

---

That part not in bold is also not an argument I've been making. I would in fact insist the opposite. Russia uses client states, and so should we.

---

If that were true, you wouldn't be advocating policy based on what Romania might do a decade or three from now. Denying Russia a sphere of influence is implicit to your whole argument here.

whiterock said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

I won't abandon Sanity.

I won't lie to sell my position.

I won't ignore the deaths of innocents in the name of politics.

Some here have done so, it appears.

---

You also won't identify how letting Russia annex all/part of Ukraine is preferable to the current situation.

---

Since I oppose Putin's invasion, of course I do not consider that acceptable. Have you ignored all my prior posts?

---

The peace argument for this war is quite weaker than most.

Putin's policy is quite clear, consistent, in both statement and deed. He is going to keep coming westward, with columns armored and fifth, until the Baltics, Poland, Slovakia, Hungary, and Romania are no longer members in Nato. The only question is time...

---

Come on...you can not possibly know that.

Not to mention any invasion, attack, aggression against any NATO state means war with the USA-UK-France-Germany.

Russia of course would be wiped out in such a war.

There is no rational world were we see Russian troop watering their horses in the Danube river.

This statement of "we must stop Russia in Donbas (where the people are ethnic Russians) before they reach Poland or Hungary" is just classic pro-war propaganda.

Hungary (long under the Soviet boot) is the lone voice of peace out there in Europe right now. They are not afraid that Russia is going to come for them next.

If the Hungarians are not afraid why should beltway boomers in D.C. be afraid?

If anything this war against Ukraine as given NATO a new lease on life.

---

How can you possibly ignore that? Beyond the patent weak-man argument of the remaining post, to suggest that we cannot make sound assessments, given Russian intentions and capabilities and MO, shows profound lack of understanding of history and foreign affairs.

Here's a scenario: Ukraine falls. Russia annexes everything east of the Dnieper, and the Ukrainian coast all the way to the Romanian and Moldovan borders. That was the manifest intent of their invasion. If/when that happens, the implications are:
1) Russia now has a supply chain to Transnistria, where a Donbas-type insurgency is underway as we argue. The ability to directly supply the Russian separatists by land means Russia effectively owns Moldova, given the relative size of Transnistria to the Moldovan state. Moldova cannot stop Russia. It immediately becomes a Russian puppet state, unless the West responds with support for the existing government, creating exactly the same dynamic as developed in Ukraine 2010-2022. How far will it go? What are you going to do? Are you going to let it happen? How does another Russian puppet state further US policy interests?
2) The rump Ukrainian state would remain - Lvov and Kiev. What is your policy? Do we just back off and let it go the way of Belarus? Or do we replay the same game we've played in Ukraine since 2014, only with a sharply weaker hand? Why on earth would we chose that option when we have a better one today?
3) Russian armies are currently encamped on 4 Nato borders (Poland, Baltics). If the Ukrainian rump state becomes Belarus 2.0, that number rises to 7. Each one of those seven states are functioning participatory democracies. How will Russian armies on their border impact politics? Will it stiffen their resolve (ala Poland), or will it weaken it (Hungary). For sure, it will not have "no effect." Will Russian efforts to influence their elections be enhanced by their control over Ukraine and Modlova?
4) In democracies, the pendulum swings. Current regimes will be replaced. Usually, that will be by parties with different ideas. How long before we see a party with softly or harshly anti-Nato or even pro-Russian policies swing to power? Wouldn't that increase the possibility of another Maidan crisis? For sure it increases the number of countries in which such could happen to 7 instead of 3.
5) So, you are SecState. All of the above has happened. (the course is certain, if we lose in Ukraine, only the timeline is in question). One odd morning before coffee, you get the phone call from your COS that the Romanian Army has just surrounded key government buildings in Bucharest. Some general you don't remember meeting is making an announcement that new elections will be held in 90 days. What do you do?

The answer is: the very first thing you do is kick yourself in the ass for a few minutes for not stopping Russia in the Donbas.

Because, now, you have to worry about that general announcing a withdrawal from Nato. You have to worry about Russia effectively controlling elections held by the Romanan military, almost certainly electing a pro-Russian government that will announce a withdrawal from Nato. What do you do when each of those things happen? Complicating things, there will likely be an exiled Romanian regime encamped somewhere demanding Article 5 protections. (serious implications follow). Do we invade a Nato member to restore an exiled regime? Remember, how you respond will be watched with somewhat more than passing interest in Budapest, Warsaw, Bratislava, Tallin, Riga, and Vilnius. We would have no proxy to fight for us. it's a Manichean option - we either let it happen, and deal with the consequences (sharply weaked Nato) or we commit my daughter and a hundred thousand or so more sons & daughters back into the fray. All because you won the argument that we had no business helping Ukraine.

Everything I've posted is plainly known/seen to anyone with a basic knowledge of "the area" and "the business." EVERYTHING Putin has said and done for 25 years has been dedicated to that goal....the goal of getting all the former WP nations out of Nato. The main reason we haven't stopped him yet? The argument of ripeness: Oh, Russia is paper tiger. Look how hard they had to work to subdue Gozny, they said. The faulty premise with that line of reasoning is that the Russian battle plan illustrates weakness. In fact, it's the opposite. Such a plan is just the Russian MO. "We will take what we want and we don't care how many people we kill on either side, how many lives we destroy on either side, how much economic destruction we inflict on either side. If we want it, we want it worse than you and we will happily outbleed you, no matter how long it takes." That reasoning sounds hollow. Unless Russia is your neighbor.

We know that Russia ideologically rejects classical liberalism and democracy, seeing them as threats to the Russian way of life. We know Putin has repeatedly stated about return of Russian hegemony over the entire USSR footprint. Look what he's actually done about it. Consistently. A predictable as sunshine in the morning. How on earth could anyone possibly think Ukraine will satisfy them?

As long as there is a single Ukrainian willing to die for his country, we should make sure he/she never fails for lack of arms & ammo. Every day of battle degrades the Russian war machine. Every day of battle pushes out into the future the time it will take Russia to rebuild. It is borderline madness to cut off the military supply lines to Ukraine, when the consequences are uniformly negative, short and long term, to US interests and actually significantly increase the prospects of escalation.

Your policy on Ukraine is well beyond undesirable.

---

This is why countries like Romania never should have joined NATO. The dilemma you describe is a predictable result of the policies you advocate.

---

that is a very fair point.

Unfortunately, the question is "asked & answered." The decision has been made. We have a treaty obligation to defend Romania. We can't say "oh well, we shouldn't have done that in the first place." We have to honor the obligation or.....dare I say it....we confirm Zelenskyy's press conference comments about American credibility. We balk, all of Nato is a paper tiger.

---

Sure, but we're talking about two different things now. We can defend Romania if we have to. That doesn't mean our policy needs to revolve around keeping Romania in NATO. It's not as if they bring much to the table in terms of strengthening the alliance. Strategically they're one of its weakest points, along with the Baltic states.

---

Yea there are lots of good articles out there about how the expansions of 2004 brought in a lot of poor countries that don't make good NATO partners to begin with....more liabilities than assets.

Obviously the expansion in 1999 that brought in Poland, Czechia, Hungary was a decent play. Poland especially is very geo-strategically important.

The 2004 expansion antagonized Russia and was certainly not necessary. Brought in a bunch of duds like Bulgaria, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Romania. Poor countries than can not defend themselves or really contribute much of anything to NATO defense.

Poland leaving NATO would be a blow. Latvia leaving would probably be a net benefit in truth.

---

Yep, expanding NATO has provoked our opponent and weakened our own position at the same time. And the next step is to do more of the same. Brilliant bit of strategy, isn't it?

---

unforced error, counselor: It most certainly did not weaken our position. If it did, how on earth could Russia claim it as a threat?

---

Reckless threats are an actual thing.

whiterock said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

Come on...you can not possibly know that.

Not to mention any invasion, attack, aggression against any NATO state means war with the USA-UK-France-Germany.

Russia of course would be wiped out in such a war.

There is no rational world were we see Russian troop watering their horses in the Danube river.

This statement of "we must stop Russia in Donbas (where the people are ethnic Russians) before they reach Poland or Hungary" is just classic pro-war propaganda.

Hungary (long under the Soviet boot) is the lone voice of peace out there in Europe right now. They are not afraid that Russia is going to come for them next.

If the Hungarians are not afraid why should beltway boomers in D.C. be afraid?

If anything this war against Ukraine as given NATO a new lease on life.

---

How can you possibly ignore that? Beyond the patent weak-man argument of the remaining post, to suggest that we cannot make sound assessments, given Russian intentions and capabilities and MO, shows profound lack of understanding of history and foreign affairs.

Here's a scenario: Ukraine falls. Russia annexes everything east of the Dnieper, and the Ukrainian coast all the way to the Romanian and Moldovan borders. That was the manifest intent of their invasion. If/when that happens, the implications are:
1) Russia now has a supply chain to Transnistria, where a Donbas-type insurgency is underway as we argue. The ability to directly supply the Russian separatists by land means Russia effectively owns Moldova, given the relative size of Transnistria to the Moldovan state. Moldova cannot stop Russia. It immediately becomes a Russian puppet state, unless the West responds with support for the existing government, creating exactly the same dynamic as developed in Ukraine 2010-2022. How far will it go? What are you going to do? Are you going to let it happen? How does another Russian puppet state further US policy interests?
2) The rump Ukrainian state would remain - Lvov and Kiev. What is your policy? Do we just back off and let it go the way of Belarus? Or do we replay the same game we've played in Ukraine since 2014, only with a sharply weaker hand? Why on earth would we chose that option when we have a better one today?
3) Russian armies are currently encamped on 4 Nato borders (Poland, Baltics). If the Ukrainian rump state becomes Belarus 2.0, that number rises to 7. Each one of those seven states are functioning participatory democracies. How will Russian armies on their border impact politics? Will it stiffen their resolve (ala Poland), or will it weaken it (Hungary). For sure, it will not have "no effect." Will Russian efforts to influence their elections be enhanced by their control over Ukraine and Modlova?
4) In democracies, the pendulum swings. Current regimes will be replaced. Usually, that will be by parties with different ideas. How long before we see a party with softly or harshly anti-Nato or even pro-Russian policies swing to power? Wouldn't that increase the possibility of another Maidan crisis? For sure it increases the number of countries in which such could happen to 7 instead of 3.
5) So, you are SecState. All of the above has happened. (the course is certain, if we lose in Ukraine, only the timeline is in question). One odd morning before coffee, you get the phone call from your COS that the Romanian Army has just surrounded key government buildings in Bucharest. Some general you don't remember meeting is making an announcement that new elections will be held in 90 days. What do you do?

The answer is: the very first thing you do is kick yourself in the ass for a few minutes for not stopping Russia in the Donbas.

Because, now, you have to worry about that general announcing a withdrawal from Nato. You have to worry about Russia effectively controlling elections held by the Romanan military, almost certainly electing a pro-Russian government that will announce a withdrawal from Nato. What do you do when each of those things happen? Complicating things, there will likely be an exiled Romanian regime encamped somewhere demanding Article 5 protections. (serious implications follow). Do we invade a Nato member to restore an exiled regime? Remember, how you respond will be watched with somewhat more than passing interest in Budapest, Warsaw, Bratislava, Tallin, Riga, and Vilnius. We would have no proxy to fight for us. it's a Manichean option - we either let it happen, and deal with the consequences (sharply weaked Nato) or we commit my daughter and a hundred thousand or so more sons & daughters back into the fray. All because you won the argument that we had no business helping Ukraine.

Everything I've posted is plainly known/seen to anyone with a basic knowledge of "the area" and "the business." EVERYTHING Putin has said and done for 25 years has been dedicated to that goal....the goal of getting all the former WP nations out of Nato. The main reason we haven't stopped him yet? The argument of ripeness: Oh, Russia is paper tiger. Look how hard they had to work to subdue Gozny, they said. The faulty premise with that line of reasoning is that the Russian battle plan illustrates weakness. In fact, it's the opposite. Such a plan is just the Russian MO. "We will take what we want and we don't care how many people we kill on either side, how many lives we destroy on either side, how much economic destruction we inflict on either side. If we want it, we want it worse than you and we will happily outbleed you, no matter how long it takes." That reasoning sounds hollow. Unless Russia is your neighbor.

We know that Russia ideologically rejects classical liberalism and democracy, seeing them as threats to the Russian way of life. We know Putin has repeatedly stated about return of Russian hegemony over the entire USSR footprint. Look what he's actually done about it. Consistently. A predictable as sunshine in the morning. How on earth could anyone possibly think Ukraine will satisfy them?

As long as there is a single Ukrainian willing to die for his country, we should make sure he/she never fails for lack of arms & ammo. Every day of battle degrades the Russian war machine. Every day of battle pushes out into the future the time it will take Russia to rebuild. It is borderline madness to cut off the military supply lines to Ukraine, when the consequences are uniformly negative, short and long term, to US interests and actually significantly increase the prospects of escalation.

Your policy on Ukraine is well beyond undesirable.

---

This is why countries like Romania never should have joined NATO. The dilemma you describe is a predictable result of the policies you advocate.

---

that is a very fair point.

Unfortunately, the question is "asked & answered." The decision has been made. We have a treaty obligation to defend Romania. We can't say "oh well, we shouldn't have done that in the first place." We have to honor the obligation or.....dare I say it....we confirm Zelenskyy's press conference comments about American credibility. We balk, all of Nato is a paper tiger.

---

Sure, but we're talking about two different things now. We can defend Romania if we have to. That doesn't mean our policy needs to revolve around keeping Romania in NATO. It's not as if they bring much to the table in terms of strengthening the alliance. Strategically they're one of its weakest points, along with the Baltic states.

---

yes, but....

A) have we ever had a departure from Nato?
and
B) how that departure happens is a very important thing.
and
C) any departure is a loss for the alliance. A Russian client state in Romania opens up the slavic parts of the Balkans to Donbas/Transnistria type nonense, which proliferates problems for all the remaining members.
and
D) see above about avoiding all that by just winning the damned proxy war we're in right now.

There is no upside to not winning.......

---

We've been "avoiding" war by instigating war for as long as I can remember. If our policy is that we can have client states but Russia can't, we're never going to avoid war.

---

The problem is of course that the D.C. ruling class....trained by academics in foreign policy at Harvard, Georgetown, Princeton....think spheres of influence is an outdated concept, even a "dangerous" and "reactionary" concept.

Of course that is madness..spheres of influence have been a thing since the Bronze age (if not forever) and will always be a thing among great States.

https://thehill.com/opinion/international/591599-spheres-of-influence-are-back-whether-us-policymakers-accept-it-or-not/

[The U.S. foreign policy establishment continues to view the very idea of spheres of influence other than its own, of course as a dangerous atavism that must not be allowed a second act. The return to a world of spheres of influence, or so the argument runs, would mark the definitive end of the quarter-century-long unipolar moment and the liberal international order that it spawned. ]

---

Power Political analysis dictates always contest the shatterzone. Ukraine IS THE SHATTERZONE BETWEEN NATO AND RUSSIA.

---

And if that's true, it explains why Russia was provoked. Ukraine can't very well be a part of NATO and also be a shatterzone between NATO and Russia.

Sam Lowry: "Russia was provoked"

B u l l s h i t.

Further explanation is not needed.

RMF5630 said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

I won't abandon Sanity.

I won't lie to sell my position.

I won't ignore the deaths of innocents in the name of politics.

Some here have done so, it appears.

---

You also won't identify how letting Russia annex all/part of Ukraine is preferable to the current situation.

---

Since I oppose Putin's invasion, of course I do not consider that acceptable. Have you ignored all my prior posts?

---

The peace argument for this war is quite weaker than most.

Putin's policy is quite clear, consistent, in both statement and deed. He is going to keep coming westward, with columns armored and fifth, until the Baltics, Poland, Slovakia, Hungary, and Romania are no longer members in Nato. The only question is time...

---

Come on...you can not possibly know that.

Not to mention any invasion, attack, aggression against any NATO state means war with the USA-UK-France-Germany.

Russia of course would be wiped out in such a war.

There is no rational world were we see Russian troop watering their horses in the Danube river.

This statement of "we must stop Russia in Donbas (where the people are ethnic Russians) before they reach Poland or Hungary" is just classic pro-war propaganda.

Hungary (long under the Soviet boot) is the lone voice of peace out there in Europe right now. They are not afraid that Russia is going to come for them next.

If the Hungarians are not afraid why should beltway boomers in D.C. be afraid?

If anything this war against Ukraine as given NATO a new lease on life.

---

How can you possibly ignore that? Beyond the patent weak-man argument of the remaining post, to suggest that we cannot make sound assessments, given Russian intentions and capabilities and MO, shows profound lack of understanding of history and foreign affairs.

Here's a scenario: Ukraine falls. Russia annexes everything east of the Dnieper, and the Ukrainian coast all the way to the Romanian and Moldovan borders. That was the manifest intent of their invasion. If/when that happens, the implications are:
1) Russia now has a supply chain to Transnistria, where a Donbas-type insurgency is underway as we argue. The ability to directly supply the Russian separatists by land means Russia effectively owns Moldova, given the relative size of Transnistria to the Moldovan state. Moldova cannot stop Russia. It immediately becomes a Russian puppet state, unless the West responds with support for the existing government, creating exactly the same dynamic as developed in Ukraine 2010-2022. How far will it go? What are you going to do? Are you going to let it happen? How does another Russian puppet state further US policy interests?
2) The rump Ukrainian state would remain - Lvov and Kiev. What is your policy? Do we just back off and let it go the way of Belarus? Or do we replay the same game we've played in Ukraine since 2014, only with a sharply weaker hand? Why on earth would we chose that option when we have a better one today?
3) Russian armies are currently encamped on 4 Nato borders (Poland, Baltics). If the Ukrainian rump state becomes Belarus 2.0, that number rises to 7. Each one of those seven states are functioning participatory democracies. How will Russian armies on their border impact politics? Will it stiffen their resolve (ala Poland), or will it weaken it (Hungary). For sure, it will not have "no effect." Will Russian efforts to influence their elections be enhanced by their control over Ukraine and Modlova?
4) In democracies, the pendulum swings. Current regimes will be replaced. Usually, that will be by parties with different ideas. How long before we see a party with softly or harshly anti-Nato or even pro-Russian policies swing to power? Wouldn't that increase the possibility of another Maidan crisis? For sure it increases the number of countries in which such could happen to 7 instead of 3.
5) So, you are SecState. All of the above has happened. (the course is certain, if we lose in Ukraine, only the timeline is in question). One odd morning before coffee, you get the phone call from your COS that the Romanian Army has just surrounded key government buildings in Bucharest. Some general you don't remember meeting is making an announcement that new elections will be held in 90 days. What do you do?

The answer is: the very first thing you do is kick yourself in the ass for a few minutes for not stopping Russia in the Donbas.

Because, now, you have to worry about that general announcing a withdrawal from Nato. You have to worry about Russia effectively controlling elections held by the Romanan military, almost certainly electing a pro-Russian government that will announce a withdrawal from Nato. What do you do when each of those things happen? Complicating things, there will likely be an exiled Romanian regime encamped somewhere demanding Article 5 protections. (serious implications follow). Do we invade a Nato member to restore an exiled regime? Remember, how you respond will be watched with somewhat more than passing interest in Budapest, Warsaw, Bratislava, Tallin, Riga, and Vilnius. We would have no proxy to fight for us. it's a Manichean option - we either let it happen, and deal with the consequences (sharply weaked Nato) or we commit my daughter and a hundred thousand or so more sons & daughters back into the fray. All because you won the argument that we had no business helping Ukraine.

Everything I've posted is plainly known/seen to anyone with a basic knowledge of "the area" and "the business." EVERYTHING Putin has said and done for 25 years has been dedicated to that goal....the goal of getting all the former WP nations out of Nato. The main reason we haven't stopped him yet? The argument of ripeness: Oh, Russia is paper tiger. Look how hard they had to work to subdue Gozny, they said. The faulty premise with that line of reasoning is that the Russian battle plan illustrates weakness. In fact, it's the opposite. Such a plan is just the Russian MO. "We will take what we want and we don't care how many people we kill on either side, how many lives we destroy on either side, how much economic destruction we inflict on either side. If we want it, we want it worse than you and we will happily outbleed you, no matter how long it takes." That reasoning sounds hollow. Unless Russia is your neighbor.

We know that Russia ideologically rejects classical liberalism and democracy, seeing them as threats to the Russian way of life. We know Putin has repeatedly stated about return of Russian hegemony over the entire USSR footprint. Look what he's actually done about it. Consistently. A predictable as sunshine in the morning. How on earth could anyone possibly think Ukraine will satisfy them?

As long as there is a single Ukrainian willing to die for his country, we should make sure he/she never fails for lack of arms & ammo. Every day of battle degrades the Russian war machine. Every day of battle pushes out into the future the time it will take Russia to rebuild. It is borderline madness to cut off the military supply lines to Ukraine, when the consequences are uniformly negative, short and long term, to US interests and actually significantly increase the prospects of escalation.

Your policy on Ukraine is well beyond undesirable.

---

This is why countries like Romania never should have joined NATO. The dilemma you describe is a predictable result of the policies you advocate.

---

that is a very fair point.

Unfortunately, the question is "asked & answered." The decision has been made. We have a treaty obligation to defend Romania. We can't say "oh well, we shouldn't have done that in the first place." We have to honor the obligation or.....dare I say it....we confirm Zelenskyy's press conference comments about American credibility. We balk, all of Nato is a paper tiger.

---

Sure, but we're talking about two different things now. We can defend Romania if we have to. That doesn't mean our policy needs to revolve around keeping Romania in NATO. It's not as if they bring much to the table in terms of strengthening the alliance. Strategically they're one of its weakest points, along with the Baltic states.

---

yes, but....

A) have we ever had a departure from Nato?
and
B) how that departure happens is a very important thing.
and
C) any departure is a loss for the alliance. A Russian client state in Romania opens up the slavic parts of the Balkans to Donbas/Transnistria type nonense, which proliferates problems for all the remaining members.
and
D) see above about avoiding all that by just winning the damned proxy war we're in right now.

There is no upside to not winning.......

---

Romania is on the Euro and deeply integrated with the EU. They also see Ukraine and want nothing to do with Russia.

They are not going anywhere.

In fact they want more NATO troops in country....for both protection and for the money service members spend.

https://www.euractiv.com/section/politics/short_news/romania-wants-increased-nato-and-us-presence-on-its-territory/

Little Ireland (5 million pop.) contributes more to the EU economy than all of Romania (pop. 19 million)

https://www.statista.com/statistics/316691/eu-budget-contributions-by-country/

They are a free rider on both the EU and NATO...and they are smart enough to realize they have a very good thing going.

---

Your analysis is sound up to the day Romania sees 60k Russian troops stationed in Odessa and Nato STILL refusing to station troops in Romania. (I mean, we've never stationed permanently any NATO troops in the former WP countries, in deference to Russia, to not antagonize Russia. Do we really think those same NATO members who've thought that way thus far are going to decide NOW to forward deploy troops to those countries? ) The failure to do so thus far is a statement. The failure to do that now or in the future also makes a statement. Neither statement will inspire confidence in Romania that they can count on Nato to prevent the conflict from starting. And remember the true lesson of the Russo-Ukrainian war = the cost of victory against Russia exceeds the capability of any of the former WP nations to bear alone.

The moment the Russians garrison troops and ships in Odessa, Romanian options are not longer solely about what they want to do. They now have to counterbalance every decision against how Moscow will react. Being intransigently pro-Nato has risks, for the country and for each politician. The pro-Nato leaders will, best case, go to the gulag when Russia restores hegemony.

This is why Russia wants to gain Ukraine back. It wants to increase its leverage in formerly controlled lands. Every mile its armies moves closer, that leverage increases.

How does allowing Russian influence in Romana to expand augur the to benefit of US interests?

---

We have never stationed them in former WP, true. But, this Ukraine move is changing that thinking. Antagonize Russia? THey are invading. Poland is screaming for NATO troops, even saying if Germany doesn't want them they will take them! They wanted our Heavy's that Obama and Trump pulled out. Russia threatens a NATO nation, all bets are off.

The Nation I worry about leaving is Turkey, they have never been a fit.

US and NATO interests is for Russia to stay out of Ukraine. I think those worrying about the North (Finland, Sweden and Baltics) are wrong. Russia will go South to the Black Sea where it has more support from Georgia, Chechnya and even Iran, further from NATO's heart. If they start going into Romania, Moldova, and Bulgaria it will put pressure on Turkey and move the battle from NATO's strengths...

---

Why would Poland not want US troops? Just for the cash they bring alone.

How many billions do we put into the German economy every year from our military bases and personnel? We can't even guess how much we have spent there since 1945.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_Army_installations_in_Germany

We still have at least 40,000 troops there in 40 major bases. And at one point we had 220 other bases during the cold war.

In terms of investment, infrastructure, payouts, contracts with local businesses, spending by service members in the local area....it has to be in the many many billions a year.

I am sure the German government knows the exact dollar figure because they are not interested in seeing the U.S. leave.

Of course Poland would love to get the U.S. to decamp from Germany and move all their bases...and that sweet sweet revenue...to Poland.

War profiteering by bureaucrats. Shame

EXCLUSIVE: Alexander Vindman Secretly Pitching Ukrainian Military for Millions in Defense Contracts | Human Events | https://t.co/2RtP4Lj0dn https://t.co/cGFO1JahCX

— Jack Posobiec 🇺🇸 (@JackPosobiec) March 3, 2023

whiterock said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

whiterock said:

---

trey3216 said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

---

Of course he is. It is in his and Ukraine's best interest to add NATO to his defense. Why would anyone expect him not to play for NATO to enter the war???

It is up to NATO to set the parameters of support, not Zelinsky. He will take whatever support we will give, it is nave and foolish to expect otherwise. Don't see the point of Wolfe's tweet besides dramatic effect.

---

Zelensky is saying that it will absolutely happen, not that it's on the table as an option.

---

Exactly.

Ukraine can push, publicly and privately, all it wants to for Nato membership. And such will have an impact on it's foreign relationships.

NATO is not obligated by any of that. Nor has NATO made any promises. NATO is doing what NATO should, exercising strategic ambiguity....not clearly indicating whether it will or will not admit Ukraine. That complicates Russian calculations.

I don't see a likely scenario for Ukraine entering Nato. Major issues: such would ratify the Russian excuse for the war in the first place, such would put MORE Russian/Nato divisions stationed across borders from each other, such would have opposition from Nato members. I would assess Turkey as a hard NO to Ukrainian membership. Crimea and much of southern Ukraine was once either integral or vassal to the Ottoman Empire. A weak, independent Ukrainian state is far more useful to Turkey than a peer state within Nato that could count on Article 5 protections.

The forces driving this war are as old as time. Turkey, if one were to spend all night drinking raki with Erdogan, has not given up on the romantic notion of one day returning those lands to a regime enforcing sharia law, as a protectorate of Turkey. That such is impossible in any practical scenario one could devise does not mean that such romance would not have influence over policy today.

I would be extremely reluctant to admit Ukraine to NATO. Would not close the door, but would want to see a couple decades to assess the stability of the Ukrainian society. By contrast, an independent Ukraine counting on partner status with Nato is a manageable scenario with limited short-term downside. A Ukrainian state careening between pro-West and pro-Russian factions is only a problem if that state is already a NATO ally. Nato has never had a scenario where undemocratic actions inside a member state has threatened to fracture the alliance. We should not court such a scenario by admitting unstable partners, particularly not when Russian armies are waiting to come to the aid of a country that has undemocratically chosen to withraw from Nato. The problems are myriad: Do we attack a Nato state to return them to an alliance? Do we invoke Article 5 on behalf of a regime in exile to fight to expel Russian troops from a Nato state which has invited them in? We did that in WWII. Do we do it today? Hard choices. Which are best avoided by winning the current conflict.

the size of Nato makes in virtually invulnerable to military attack.
the size of Nato makes it HIGHLY vulnerable to 5th column actions.

Ergo the need to keep Russian armies in Russia.......

---

Ukraine can join NATO under 1 and only 1 condition….they need total victory in their war versus Russia.

Why?

Because Russia needs to be humiliated. Russia needs a face check in modern global affairs both politically and economically. Russia needs to understand that its long suffering, mafioso tactics have no business in an integrated world. That expansion by force is not a policy. That screaming Nazi at people you don't like (but oh so desperately want their land and for them to be integrated into your nation once you take it) is not a way of life, especially when you're acting as the Nazi in this scenario.

Then, and only then, can Ukraine be a part of NATO, because it won't matter if they're in nato anymore once Russia decides they don't want to be the heel

---

Ukraine can join NATO anytime two conditions are met: It applies, and Nato accepts. Nato is most certainly not going to accept Ukraine while it is engaged in a very hot war with Russia, as such would be a patent declaration of war against Russia. Ukraine knows this. That's why Ukraine is begging for arms & ammo from Nato countries. Ukraine can win the war if fully supplied.

---

It is not a simple matter to just supply. NATO weapon systems require training. You can't just put 4 armored crewmen in a M1, let alone a battalion, and expect them to engage T-90s. That is not even considering the supply and maintenance to support that battalion. To make a dent, you are talking brigades. That is a generational change! To do it on the fly with a hodgepodge combination of Leopards, Challengers and M1s? You will need armor to dislodge Russia, infantry and artillery can only do so much against armor columns, especially since Russia owns the air space.

I would imagine aircraft are worse. F16s take 9 months to train on the aircraft alone, not even considering operating in echelon to create an effect.


I am all for supporting Ukraine, but it has to be done in a sustainable, realistic manner.

---

There are still 47 Russian-made,figher/bomber jet aircraft in Polish inventory. Romania has 21. Slovakia has 11. That's 79 airframes, that those three nations struggle to maintain, some key parts unavailable. Better to transfer them to die in combat defending Western interests than collect dust in a scrapyard somewhere. Ukraine can cannibalize them for parts and get at least 50 jets back in the air very quickly. Some within days. Whatever argument can be made about the limitations in time & capability such would afford, it is better than letting them rust on the ground next door.

We have been training crews on M1s and Leopards for months. Yes, they are supposed to be operating in brigades. Yes, they will not be as fully trained as a western crew. But we are a year into the war. It has turned desultory in no small part because there are no full-strength tank brigades on either side. The numbers being provided, all types, exceed a tank brigade. That gives us 75% capable (training limitations) tank brigade with logistical limitations, to punch thru from Bakhmut to the Sea of Azov 102 miles away.

After the first 40 miles, the Azov coast would be in range of Himars batteries.
And 50 Ukrainian jets in the air would deny Russia air control over that line of advance for a period of time.
A 102 mile armored advance is achievable.
The Russian troops on the entire right flank of the Ukrainan advance would be cut off from primary supply lines.

This is not a high risk proposition we're talking about, given that we are well down inside the malestrom of war, where the orders of battle have a lot more to do with what IS on hand matters a lot more than what the textbooks say SHOULD be on hand...

---

Didn't say I was against it, just that it is a sustainable and reasonable approach... Gonna be a painful learning curve.