Yep, Putin has been having wet dreams for decades about splitting up NATO. Thinking historians will reflect on this time period as a de facto war between the US and Russia being fought asymmetrically on multiple levels. Bullets and missiles are not flying at each other yet, but it is a war nonetheless. We minimize or deny that at our peril. He has despised the US and the west for his entire life and would love some payback for the demise of the Soviet Union and the breakup of the eastern bloc. Regarding Europe, some of the same dynamics apply as did in the cold war; i.e. the Russians having a short term advantage in conventional forces on the ground. The calculus back then was our nuclear deterrent would somehow stave off any Soviet ambitions of rolling across western Europe. To a degree the same applies today. If Putin sees chances to drive wedges into the NATO alliance, perhaps even peel off a few countries he will undoubtedly go for that.
If they have access to trade through China, given what they have already protected from the world system to avoid sanctions, Russia can probably sustain for a long while without the US directly pressuring them militarily. But I guess it would depend on how well organized the resistance efforts were in these countries. One thing to recognize is there are pro-russia people all over the baltics. Not as many, but Putin would have access to some help in almost all of these places he went in to especially if he propped up some of the less popular politicians that are more authoritarian in these areas. So it wouldn't all be on the Russian military to maintain the peace.
China can't grant them full access to the banking system in the way that they get in Britain and the US. There is a reason that Putin stopped well short of taking and trying to hold Georgia and nothing has changed on that front, other than possibly that Putin is beginning to act less rationally. And the military power backing those local authoritarians would be fundamentally Russian, either directly or indirectly through funding (which they will struggle to do). In this scenario, they are basically stuck with a ton of Vichy Frances, with a puppet government fighting off large scale insurrections that will collapse without substantial support from Russia.
Fine. And once more I’m practically begging you: Pretty please with sugar on top, assure me that the left has some sort of other plan apart from allowing Russia to do whatever it wants but finding a way to blame Trump.
And most here agree going into war with Iraq was a mistake. Going into Vietnam was a mistake. Not going to war with the Soviet Union was good. that is a underestimation of Russia’s military’s capabilities. But agree, in a longer war we would overwhelm them. But Putin has nukes. Thousands of them. If Russia, or more importantly Putin, is losing a war we’re left to hope he doesn’t use one or two to slow us down? Fortunately Vast majority of our country don’t want to take that risk with nato vs russia war over Ukraine.
Trump's assigned task was to destroy NATO. Unwittingly, Putin has strengthened it more than ever. This is why he didn't want a Hillary/Biden in his way.
Yeah you have to avoid open conventional war with russia at all costs, but you do that through strength and deterrence. Not just praying they regain reason and stop fighting. In the past, that took about 300k-400k US troops in Europe, not counting US allies. I don't think we need to go that far, and from what I've read the US has about 90k troops scattered across Europe in different branches of the military. Perhaps if ALL of those were focused into defensive positions on NATO's eastern flank, Russia might finally back down a bit. But there is very little Armor and I have read disturbingly low artillery ammunition. The US has to demonstrate a strength in this area, and that requires rearmament, and redeployment. And a lot more air superiority aircraft. Russia doesn't have anything that can reliably take out F22s or F35s. And the F15s and 16s that are over their with the allies won't be easy for them either. We just need more of them, they need to be forward deployed, and to move the Air Force to "air defense" rules of engagement which will signal russia that if they fly into NATO airspace they will get their shit pushed in.
Neat political narrative but not aligned with military facts. What Trump did with respect to NATO was compel them to pay their fair share for the maintenance of this alliance, and in this he showed some success (not nearly as much, in my opinion, as he would have had he shown even the slightest bit of statesmanship). That only made NATO stronger, not weaker. Many of us in the military who have fought alongside NATO allies have resented for years the way many of them enjoy the protections NATO offers while begging off from its obligations at every opportunity. An alliance does not just mean mutual protection; it also means mutual inconvenience, or risk if you prefer. Other than, say, Canada, the U.S. benefits the least from this alliance yet is consistently expected to bear the overwhelming cost. And I’m okay with that to a point. But over the last few decades we have been chained to several corpses in terms of the military value they bring to the fight, even though they have been capable of doing more and choose not to. Trump was absolutely right to say if they wanted us to continue to share the risk, then they needed to step up and share the burden. Where he was wrong was his typical boorish, obnoxious approach of shaming and ridiculing our allies publicly. I understand from some of my colleagues who participated in negotiations that he was more statesmanlike and reasonable behind closed doors, but that’s the opposite of how he should have handled it. In that sense, he deserves full blame for feeding the categorical nonsense spewed by his political enemies that he was out to destroy NATO for Putin. Politics aside, in my military opinion, President Biden’s inexplicable actions in Afghanistan last year were far more damaging to the alliance than Trump’s ham fisted approach to getting member nations to increase their defense budgets. Let’s not forget that RESOLUTE SUPPORT (the name of which is now just ironic) was a NATO mission, not a U.S. one. Other nations had tied their blood, treasure, and honor to its completion. The UK and Germany, in particular, were horrified (Italy didn’t care from what I’ve heard, and that is entirely consistent with their military culture) that the U.S. would just pull out, render vulnerable all the gains made to date, and leave NATO with a military defeat. They even offered to continue the train, advise, and assist mission without the U.S. if the U.S. would support them logistically and with firepower under severe duress. Biden refused because, as near as any of us in the know could tell, he just thought it would be embarrassing if they stayed while we left. And I suppose that’s true to a degree. Better to make sure we all look weak and incompetent, not just the U.S. But I’m not naive. I know many on here have a fixed political narrative that they’re going to stick with no matter what the reality of the situation was.
I don’t think anyone is going to dispute that, but how did we avoid general war with the Soviet Union? I argue that it was holding firm when they probed red lines and presenting a viable military threat to their aggression during the Berlin Blockade, Korea, the Cuban Missile Crisis et al was what kept general warfare from occurring, not appeasement. And that is what I recommend here, though as I’ve stated, I think we are going to step aside and only delay a bigger conflict later. It’s fine that you think I underestimate Russian air and sea power, but this is what I do every day and have done for over 20 years. I don’t casually dismiss the threat, by the way. Russia would be a dangerous enemy for us. I am only telling you that we are a more dangerous enemy to them. We have some capabilities they have no answer for. There are other career military professionals on this site. I would be interested to hear them weigh in on my assessment. And, of course, I understand that Russia has nukes. But they know and we know what it means to use them, and like us they will go out of their way to keep this war as limited to their objectives as humanly possible. I’m not hawkishly telling you I want to get into a fight with Russia. I want the opposite of that more than you probably understand. It’s not just that I’ve fought enough over the last two decades, though I have. My son is a lieutenant in the 101st Airborne, so I quite selfishly want to see this crisis defused without a fight. But I am telling you that I think the only way that happens is if we are prepared to fight and they believe it.
It sounds like you want to afford NATO protection to countries that aren’t in NATO, so why would the other member states have any reason to contribute more than they are?
I never said NATO was obligated to assist Ukraine. This is not an Article-V issue, or I would have said it was. You are linking two separate issues I was addressing. So let me be painstakingly clear: I do not believe that any member state, including the U.S., is obligated under the North Atlantic Treaty to provide any form of assistance whatsoever to Ukraine. I do believe that all member nations are obligated to spend a minimum 2% of GDP on their defense (so they actually bring something to the table on game day) and only then to throw good money after bad with free goodies for people who don’t want to work. That said, I think certain NATO member nations have a clear interest in checking Russian aggression and would probably join us in assisting Ukraine if we would lead, but building a coalition is not the argument I was making. If I were in charge, I would make my case primarily to Congress and then to the UN. Engaging NATO (and the EU) for collective economic measures is prudent, but to provide military deterrence at this point we primarily require Congress to publicly authorize the use of force for the reasons already stated. Now does that clarify my position for you, or was it (as I suspect) just a “gotcha” intended to undermine my position that at this point military pressure only will deter Russia?
I don't see how one has much to do with the other. My point is that the NATO member states know that the US's interest in checking Russian aggression and maintaining the status quo world order are more significant than ensuring any kind of fair or equitable contribution to the alliance. So their incentive is to free ride and allow the US to shoulder the lions share of the costs. Us intervening on behalf of Ukraine, which isn't even a member nation, only strengthens that incentive, because it makes clear that we're not really serious about hanging anyone out to dry if they don't pay. It's not like we're going to let Russia invade France. Now, if all we do is sanction Russia for invading Ukraine, that could be a pretty big wake up call, at least for the Eastern Europeans countries, that they really do depend on the alliance for protection, and if they want to ensure our protection, they should contribute in accordance with their agreement. As for what will deter Russia, I've said before that I think putting troops in the country would almost certainly stop any invasion, since Putin isn't an idiot and doesn't want to tangle with us directly. Whether we can stop him short of direct military invention, I'm not certain. The threat of death-penalty style financial sanctions may be enough. What good is capturing more territory if it makes your country weaker and poorer overall? As @mdgator05 said, the real world isn't a game of Risk. You don't win the game just by winning an invasion. You have to actually do something productive with the conquered territory to make it worthwhile, and I'm not sure Russia can.
This isn’t about left and right. It is about what the most effective deterrent is and where do we draw the line. You want to draw it now with a commitment to support Ukraine’s military, with some involvement. Biden drew the military lime around the NATO countries. Frankly, you are right if we are willing to risk a big war now to possibly prevent one in the future. I am not sure I see Putin stopping with Ukraine. If he takes Ukraine, he may want to wait until the last of the cold warriors are gone and there is a change in the political winds. I agree Trump needs to he left out of this. This is why I have always been a big supporter of the alliance.
