Outside Topic Way OT: Ukraine - Printable Version

+- The CardBoard (https://thecardboard.org/board)
+-- Forum: C-House! (https://thecardboard.org/board/forum-4.html)
+--- Forum: The CardBoard (https://thecardboard.org/board/forum-5.html)
+--- Thread: Outside Topic Way OT: Ukraine (/thread-23071.html)

---

RE: Way OT: Ukraine - OutsiderFan - 07-10-2023

Yay

Now watch that pissant Orban (Hungary) block Sweden...

Jens Stoltenberg is a very credible leader. Actions have backed his words in a very profound way.

---

RE: Way OT: Ukraine - Goose - 07-10-2023

Everyone needs to be very aware until the vote in Parliament, it isn't a "done deal". Obviously, it is much better to have a"deal", but we don't yet know what that deal entails and if there are quid pro quo that have to happen first. Of course, they may be none, but I doubt that for some reason :-). Maybe Erdoğan is a trusting soul, but for some reason I doubt that.

---

RE: Way OT: Ukraine - Treefence - 07-10-2023

Agreed Goose,  We thought this was taken care of almost a year ago when a "deal was in place" but obviously all it takes is for Turkey to say Sweden isn't upholding their part of the deal, and we go back into a waiting pattern.

---

RE: Way OT: Ukraine - OutsiderFan - 07-10-2023

I don't think guys who know what they are doing get pics taken of themselves like the one posted today if the deal isn't done (at least as far as it can be until fully executed). Trust is required to get big things done. The parties involved know this and I can't imagine would set themselves up to look stupid - by allowing things to go sideways - at this stage.

There may be quid pro quos involved, but the parties must fully expect them to be delivered or wouldn't do what would amount to a meaningless photo op. What would be the point?

---

RE: Way OT: Ukraine - Goose - 07-10-2023

(07-10-2023, 01:18 PM)Treefence Wrote:  Agreed Goose,  We thought this was taken care of almost a year ago when a "deal was in place" but obviously all it takes is for Turkey to say Sweden isn't upholding their part of the deal, and we go back into a waiting pattern.

Or it could be that the EU has agreed to restart negotiations, or it could be the the US has agreed to F-16 deliveries without congressional approval or it could be none of the above. It may be there won't be a vote until whatever it is has been publicly announced, or not. Anyone who can claim to understand Erdoğan is IMO kidding themselves. Who predicted he was going to give the Ukrainian POWs back that he promised Putin he would keep? What will he and Putin discuss in their visit? What about the grain deal? Can Erdoğan deliver an extension?

---

RE: Way OT: Ukraine - GK3 - 07-10-2023

(07-10-2023, 01:48 PM)Goose Wrote:  

(07-10-2023, 01:18 PM)Treefence Wrote:  Agreed Goose,  We thought this was taken care of almost a year ago when a "deal was in place" but obviously all it takes is for Turkey to say Sweden isn't upholding their part of the deal, and we go back into a waiting pattern.

Or it could be that the EU has agreed to restart negotiations, or it could be the the US has agreed to F-16 deliveries without congressional approval or it could be none of the above. It may be there won't be a vote until whatever it is has been publicly announced, or not. Anyone who can claim to understand Erdoğan is IMO kidding themselves. Who predicted he was going to give the Ukrainian POWs back that he promised Putin he would keep? What will he and Putin discuss in their visit? What about the grain deal? Can Erdoğan deliver an extension?

Erdogan is indeed an enigma.  He is playing his hand for all he is worth.  F16's, EU membership, better relation ship with Greece, the grain deal with Russia etc.  Are we better off with him in NATO and EU and Sweden in NATO? His country occupies a very strategic position in relation to Russia, but also to Iran.  
On another note this whole situation is leading to enhanced relations between NATO and Japan.  Putin's apparent miscalculation as to how fast he could roll in and gobble up Ukraine has now strengthened NATO significantly but has also stirred up the Philippines and Japan.  No one wants to be the guy without a chair when the music stops.

https://warontherocks.com/2023/07/anarchy-is-a-bridge-russia-and-china-are-pushing-nato-and-japan-together/

---

RE: Way OT: Ukraine - Treefence - 07-10-2023

(07-10-2023, 01:33 PM)OutsiderFan Wrote:  I don't think guys who know what they are doing get pics taken of themselves like the one posted today if the deal isn't done (at least as far as it can be until fully executed). Trust is required to get big things done. The parties involved know this and I can't imagine would set themselves up to look stupid - by allowing things to go sideways - at this stage.

There may be quid pro quos involved, but the parties must fully expect them to be delivered or wouldn't do what would amount to a meaningless photo op. What would be the point?

I hear you, but this also happened almost exactly a year ago, but it hasn't stopped Turkey from holding out for over a year.  

https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/photos_197173.htm

---

RE: Way OT: Ukraine - Goose - 07-10-2023

(07-10-2023, 02:09 PM)GK3 Wrote:  

(07-10-2023, 01:48 PM)Goose Wrote:  

(07-10-2023, 01:18 PM)Treefence Wrote:  Agreed Goose,  We thought this was taken care of almost a year ago when a "deal was in place" but obviously all it takes is for Turkey to say Sweden isn't upholding their part of the deal, and we go back into a waiting pattern.

Or it could be that the EU has agreed to restart negotiations, or it could be the the US has agreed to F-16 deliveries without congressional approval or it could be none of the above. It may be there won't be a vote until whatever it is has been publicly announced, or not. Anyone who can claim to understand Erdoğan is IMO kidding themselves. Who predicted he was going to give the Ukrainian POWs back that he promised Putin he would keep? What will he and Putin discuss in their visit? What about the grain deal? Can Erdoğan deliver an extension?

Erdogan is indeed an enigma.  He is playing his hand for all he is worth.  F16's, EU membership, better relation ship with Greece, the grain deal with Russia etc.  Are we better off with him in NATO and EU and Sweden in NATO? His country occupies a very strategic position in relation to Russia, but also to Iran.  
On another note this whole situation is leading to enhanced relations between NATO and Japan.  Putin's apparent miscalculation as to how fast he could roll in and gobble up Ukraine has now strengthened NATO significantly but has also stirred up the Philippines and Japan.  No one wants to be the guy without a chair when the music stops.

https://warontherocks.com/2023/07/anarchy-is-a-bridge-russia-and-china-are-pushing-nato-and-japan-together/

Indeed a good point. There is a lot of real uncertainty out there. Add Vietnam to the nations that are actively and vocally worried about the behavior of China. Uncertainty also opens the door wider to miscalculations, so the danger grows. Ukraine and Georgia in NATO is a US military nightmare, but we may sooner rather than later be confronted with that reality.

---

RE: Way OT: Ukraine - OutsiderFan - 07-10-2023

Just watched the Stoltenberg presser and conclude the following:

- Reporters overzealously linked the EU membership to Erdogan's agreement to accept Sweden into NATO
- Erdogan asked Sweden to help push Turkey's EU bid, and Sweden agreed to do so
- It doesn't seem Erdogan was ever holding Sweden hostage as much as strengthening ties with  the country
- Turkish parliament will hold off on ratification until Sweden makes the agreed to pushes on Turkey's EU bid

Of note, Stoltenberg was asked about Hungary getting in the way and he said Hungary has said it will not be the last vote to approve Sweden into NATO. Reading between the lines, it seems Hungary was helping out Turkey because it also wants Turkey in the EU.

Just a note on lousy reporting by The Washington Post with its clickbait doom story about Hungary and Turkey possibly blocking Sweden into NATO just on Sunday. It cited Turkey's "terrorist concerns" that are so completely overblown and the reporter would know were already addressed if staying up to date on the NATO beat. Expect better from The Washington Post, but I guess I shouldn't anymore.

---

RE: Way OT: Ukraine - GK3 - 07-10-2023

(07-10-2023, 02:23 PM)Goose Wrote:  

(07-10-2023, 02:09 PM)GK3 Wrote:  

(07-10-2023, 01:48 PM)Goose Wrote:  

(07-10-2023, 01:18 PM)Treefence Wrote:  Agreed Goose,  We thought this was taken care of almost a year ago when a "deal was in place" but obviously all it takes is for Turkey to say Sweden isn't upholding their part of the deal, and we go back into a waiting pattern.

Or it could be that the EU has agreed to restart negotiations, or it could be the the US has agreed to F-16 deliveries without congressional approval or it could be none of the above. It may be there won't be a vote until whatever it is has been publicly announced, or not. Anyone who can claim to understand Erdoğan is IMO kidding themselves. Who predicted he was going to give the Ukrainian POWs back that he promised Putin he would keep? What will he and Putin discuss in their visit? What about the grain deal? Can Erdoğan deliver an extension?

Erdogan is indeed an enigma.  He is playing his hand for all he is worth.  F16's, EU membership, better relation ship with Greece, the grain deal with Russia etc.  Are we better off with him in NATO and EU and Sweden in NATO? His country occupies a very strategic position in relation to Russia, but also to Iran.  
On another note this whole situation is leading to enhanced relations between NATO and Japan.  Putin's apparent miscalculation as to how fast he could roll in and gobble up Ukraine has now strengthened NATO significantly but has also stirred up the Philippines and Japan.  No one wants to be the guy without a chair when the music stops.

https://warontherocks.com/2023/07/anarchy-is-a-bridge-russia-and-china-are-pushing-nato-and-japan-together/

Indeed a good point. There is a lot of real uncertainty out there. Add Vietnam to the nations that are actively and vocally worried about the behavior of China. Uncertainty also opens the door wider to miscalculations, so the danger grows. Ukraine and Georgia in NATO is a US military nightmare, but we may sooner rather than later be confronted with that reality.

Good point about Vietnam.  I forgot about the early 1979 invasion of Vietnam by the PLA.  They have been squabbling pretty much ever since.  China is at loggerheads with about every country bordering the South China Sea.

---

RE: Way OT: Ukraine - dabigv13 - 07-10-2023

Liked this.

https://www.cnn.com/2023/07/10/business/rheinmetall-german-tank-factory-ukraine/index.html

Quote:Rheinmetall will open an armored vehicle plant in Ukraine within the next 12 weeks, shrugging off concerns other Western defense companies reportedly have about building a presence in the country while it is at war with Russia.

Germany’s biggest arms maker will also train Ukrainians to maintain the tanks and other armored vehicles made in the factory, which will be located in the western part of the country, CEO Armin Papperger told CNN in an exclusive interview on Thursday.
....

Former Russian President Dmitry Medvedev, a close ally of current President Vladimir Putin, has said Russia would retaliate by hitting any facility Rheinmetall set up in Ukraine, Reuters has reported.

Papperger said that the factory could be protected from a Russian attack.

“There are a lot of factories at the moment which are producing military goods [in Ukraine]. It is just another one — and we can protect that also,” he said.

Would be sweet if by "protect" they mean they would set up some of their MANTIS air defense systems, the coolest looking air defense system out there IMHO.

https://youtu.be/bdwjcayPuag

---

RE: Way OT: Ukraine - Goose - 07-10-2023

(07-10-2023, 05:43 PM)dabigv13 Wrote:  Liked this.
https://www.cnn.com/2023/07/10/business/rheinmetall-german-tank-factory-ukraine/index.html

Quote:Rheinmetall will open an armored vehicle plant in Ukraine within the next 12 weeks, shrugging off concerns other Western defense companies reportedly have about building a presence in the country while it is at war with Russia.
Germany’s biggest arms maker will also train Ukrainians to maintain the tanks and other armored vehicles made in the factory, which will be located in the western part of the country, CEO Armin Papperger told CNN in an exclusive interview on Thursday.
....
Former Russian President Dmitry Medvedev, a close ally of current President Vladimir Putin, has said Russia would retaliate by hitting any facility Rheinmetall set up in Ukraine, Reuters has reported.
Papperger said that the factory could be protected from a Russian attack.
“There are a lot of factories at the moment which are producing military goods [in Ukraine]. It is just another one — and we can protect that also,” he said.

Would be sweet if by "protect" they mean they would set up some of their MANTIS air defense systems, the coolest looking air defense system out there IMHO.

Probably not. They only built and delivered two of them to the German Air Force, who recently gave them away to Slovakia.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MANTIS_Air_Defence_System

---

RE: Way OT: Ukraine - Goose - 07-11-2023

https://www.yahoo.com/news/turkey-extracted-slew-concessions-letting-121818755.html

I think a good summary of the "state of play". The article does omit the fact that 1)Sweden has agreed "to help with the assertion of Türkiye into the EU" and 2) that the EU is opening negotiations with Türkiye to create lower customs barriers for trade with the EU. There also has been a significant effort regarding Greece and Cyprus ongoing issues with Türkiye. These are all important initiatives.

The EU absolutely does not want Türkiye in the EU, and when push comes to shove, Türkiye probably doesn't want to be in the EU. If one thinks Hungary is a sociopolitical problem, Türkiye would be 100 times that, partly because their large population would give them about 30% of the European parliament seats. Obviously there are serious "rule of law" issues in Türkiye. However, Türkiye is in economic distress and anything that the EU can do to increase trade (and confidence in the currency) is very valuable to Erdoğan.

It is important to note that as the article says, Erdoğan has an "escape hatch" that allows him to ensure he actually gets his F-16s and that Sweden does move against the PKK (at least to some "adequate" degree). There is no predicting whether and to what degree Erdoğan will try to extract more concessions with that "escape hatch". Hopefully, he realizes there are limits on what he can get away with and that he is very near those limits. If he goes too far, the pushback may wreck the deal, so let's hope he doesn't. Hopefully everybody else (The US congress, Sweden, the EU, and the Türkiye-PKK war in Syria) "stays in their lane" until it becomes a done deal.

UPDATE: Along these lines https://www.yahoo.com/news/analysis-turkey-sets-western-tilt-160327711.html

---

RE: Way OT: Ukraine - TrumpCard - 07-11-2023

(07-10-2023, 02:23 PM)Goose Wrote:  Indeed a good point. There is a lot of real uncertainty out there. Add Vietnam to the nations that are actively and vocally worried about the behavior of China. Uncertainty also opens the door wider to miscalculations, so the danger grows. Ukraine and Georgia in NATO is a US military nightmare, but we may sooner rather than later be confronted with that reality.

I have never heard any chatter about letting Georgia join NATO. Why would NATO countries want to take on that obligation for a tiny country with little strategic value that is not at all feasible to defend from Russian aggression?

---

RE: Way OT: Ukraine - Goose - 07-11-2023

(07-11-2023, 11:47 AM)TrumpCard Wrote:  

(07-10-2023, 02:23 PM)Goose Wrote:  Indeed a good point. There is a lot of real uncertainty out there. Add Vietnam to the nations that are actively and vocally worried about the behavior of China. Uncertainty also opens the door wider to miscalculations, so the danger grows. Ukraine and Georgia in NATO is a US military nightmare, but we may sooner rather than later be confronted with that reality.

I have never heard any chatter about letting Georgia join NATO. Why would NATO countries want to take on that obligation for a tiny country with little strategic value that is not at all feasible to defend from Russian aggression?

In 2008 at the Bucharest Summit both Georgia and Ukraine were "guaranteed" eventual NATO membership. At that time, both countries were of "little strategic value that is not at all feasible to defend from Russian aggression", but were offered anyway. Neither Georgia nor Ukraine has forgotten that. Neither have the Baltic States, which quite often bring up this issue. The see their fate as intertwined with Georgia and Ukraine and feel a duty to represent their interests. Most of the NATO countries on the eastern flank of NATO feel the same to a lesser or greater degree. The US and Germany don't feel that way, but as far as "buzz" goes, among the NATO members it is very much there. The day Ukraine gets in is the day they start lobbying heavily for Georgia.

Arguably, it was stupid to make such an offer, but it was made and lots of "credibility" is being discussed at least by the smaller NATO states at a minimum. This isn't going away anytime soon.

---

RE: Way OT: Ukraine - OutsiderFan - 07-12-2023

(07-11-2023, 11:47 AM)TrumpCard Wrote:  

(07-10-2023, 02:23 PM)Goose Wrote:  Indeed a good point. There is a lot of real uncertainty out there. Add Vietnam to the nations that are actively and vocally worried about the behavior of China. Uncertainty also opens the door wider to miscalculations, so the danger grows. Ukraine and Georgia in NATO is a US military nightmare, but we may sooner rather than later be confronted with that reality.

I have never heard any chatter about letting Georgia join NATO. Why would NATO countries want to take on that obligation for a tiny country with little strategic value that is not at all feasible to defend from Russian aggression?

While tiny countries don’t offer as much in return as they are given, NATO sees itself as a peace enabling force. The more countries are members the less likely there will be conflict. The problem NATO had pre RU invasion was not enough countries were living up to their commitments to finance their defense and NATO forces were stretched thin. I remember before Russia’s attack on Ukraine that there was great concern a NATO country could be invaded by Russia, most likely Estonia, Latvia, or Lithuania, and even uncertainty NATO would have the balls to act if this happened. Would Germany with Russian appeaser Merkel and weakened military have gotten involved when so reliant on Russian energy? UK? U.S.?

I don’t mean to be harsh about this, but Ukraine and Georgia only have themselves to blame for not getting into NATO already. They got too close to Russia with Putin-friendly governments for a while and when war started Ukraine had Russian equipment. Nobody wants to talk about these important details when complaining about the 2008 “promise” not being kept.

If Zelenskyy can’t understand the difference between now and 2008 I don’t know what to say. His country is now totally pro-democracy, has been attacked by Russia and is getting ongoing support from NATO countries to beat Russia back. It is in NATO member interest to get Ukraine in NATO now in a much bigger way than before, to say nothing of the value an experienced fighting force Ukraine will bring.  But there are qualification standards that must be met too.

Those wanting to be more deliberate have sound reasoning. Putin and Russian oligarchs don’t want their lives to end in nuclear war, so do not believe fear of war with Russia -particularly after being ground down by Ukraine- is a valid concern. But Ukraine having acceptable political system and being ready to integrate with NATO military tactics is important. Tough to learn new tricks train with others when fighting a war, and nobody can predict when it will end, so no point of having a join timeline.

Zelenskyy will eventually accept what Ukraine is getting and if he truly wants in he will determine then address the concerns some members have about Ukraine NATO accession ASAP. The G7 NATO members are making some big spending commitments to help Ukraine fight in the interim, so even if Ukraine can’t get those things done ASAP, it’s still being given support to remain viable until it does.

---

RE: Way OT: Ukraine - OutsiderFan - 07-12-2023

This guy is 100% spot on the bullseye, especially the point about Putin not wanting nuclear war because he is a documented coward with too much to lose. You don't accumulate luxurious wealth to blow up the world you live in. Only those who have nothing to lose should be feared. That is not by any definition Vladimir Putin.

https://kyivindependent.com/former-nato-envoy-to-russia-potential-escalation-with-russia-is-a-myth/

---

RE: Way OT: Ukraine - Goose - 07-12-2023

(07-12-2023, 02:53 AM)OutsiderFan Wrote:  While tiny countries don’t offer as much in return as they are given, NATO sees itself as a peace enabling force. The more countries are members the less likely there will be conflict. 

You are correct that NATO sees itself as a "peace enabling force". THE US was a founder of NATO in part because it wanted to prevent the wars that seemed to start in Europe almost like clockwork. The fact that Greece and Türkiye haven't actually fought a war over Cyprus (and other things) is in large part because they are both NATO nations. However, the idea that more members the better is dangerously false. At some point the aims (real or perceived) of the individual members overrides their need for collective security. It is also true that the more members there are, the more probable it is that some member will install a government that is unstable and will do "something stupid". NATO has influence for peace but said influence is limited. The "trick" is to not stretch that influence too far. That is easier to do when the members have similar social and political systems. As the membership becomes more "diverse", the influence fades.

Quote:The problem NATO had pre RU invasion was not enough countries were living up to their commitments to finance their defense and NATO forces were stretched thin. I remember before Russia’s attack on Ukraine that there was great concern a NATO country could be invaded by Russia, most likely Estonia, Latvia, or Lithuania, and even uncertainty NATO would have the balls to act if this happened. Would Germany with Russian appeaser Merkel and weakened military have gotten involved when so reliant on Russian energy? UK? U.S.?

Indeed there were and are problems with the NATO commitments of MANY NATO nations. Even in the presence of the current war, many of these issues persist. It isn't just about the money. It is also about the social commitment to self defense and the viability of the military forces in the country. Germany is a mess there, and isn't getting better. More money won't "fix" their problems. They need to spend more, yes, but the problem is much bigger than that. The UK has serious problems too and has created an unsustainable force. It can do some things excellently for a very short time and many other things not at all.

Quote:I don’t mean to be harsh about this, but Ukraine and Georgia only have themselves to blame for not getting into NATO already. They got too close to Russia with Putin-friendly governments for a while and when war started Ukraine had Russian equipment. Nobody wants to talk about these important details when complaining about the 2008 “promise” not being kept.

The above is partially true but woefully incomplete. Some part of it is a total red herring. Ukraine doesn't have Russian equipment. Both Russia and Ukraine have lots of Soviet equipment, a lot of which was made in Ukraine. For that matter, so does Poland, Slovakia, The Czech Republic, Hungary, Slovakia, Slovenia, Bulgaria and Romania. So do Greece and Türkiye to a lesser degree. These are all NATO nations. Obviously, the presence of equipment made in the USSR is not a debilitating factor.

Georgia in particular made significant efforts after 2008 to meet the NATO requirements. To this day, they believe they complied.  The movement towards a more Russian friendly government in Georgia recently was caused (according to the opposition parties) by NATO cold-shouldering the Georgian attempts to join NATO and get protection from Russia! The invitation was extended to Georgia at least partially to calm Georgia's fear that Russia would take over their entire country. In 2008, Georgia and Russia were actually fighting each other. The idea they were at that time pro-Russian is demonstrably false. After that war, they really needed support and were desperate to join NATO. They and many others think they got a "raw deal".

Both Ukraine and Georgia, then and now, have "issues" that make their NATO membership problematic. These problems should not be minimized, as they are real and pretty serious. However, NATO shouldn't raise the hopes of these countries if NATO is not willing to accept them with significant "warts", as fixing these problems will take time at best and these countries have to survive in the interim. That is where Georgia was in 2008 and where Ukraine is now. Hopefully NATO and /or some of it's members can generate a security arrangement that will allow these countries to survive long enough to meet the NATO "requirements".

Quote:If Zelenskyy can’t understand the difference between now and 2008 I don’t know what to say. His country is now totally pro-democracy, has been attacked by Russia and is getting ongoing support from NATO countries to beat Russia back. It is in NATO member interest to get Ukraine in NATO now in a much bigger way than before, to say nothing of the value an experienced fighting force Ukraine will bring.  But there are qualification standards that must be met too.

First of all, have no illusions. Ukraine isn't "totally pro-democracy" and isn't a perfect society. It still has serious corruption problems, serious nepotism problems, rule-of-law issues, oligarchs, etc. Look at the number of "traitors" they have detected and jailed. Look at the number of people from the Donbas that are fighting on the other side. This isn't pretty. Just because we are supporting Ukraine, we can't put lipstick on the pig and declare it perfect. Indeed it is "better", and indeed Zelenskyy is a great leader, but there are still problems.

Zelenskyy understands just fine. His country is at war with Russia and he needs to win it. Being part of NATO makes that easier. He is concerned that NATO will not extend it's umbrella over Ukraine because it did not in the past. That is a problem. Ukraine needs a security situation that is viable. Being in NATO is one way. Surrendering to Russia is another way. In between is where both they and Georgia have been, and as events show, that is a problem.

---

RE: Way OT: Ukraine - Goose - 07-12-2023

(07-12-2023, 02:53 AM)OutsiderFan Wrote:  Those wanting to be more deliberate have sound reasoning. Putin and Russian oligarchs don’t want their lives to end in nuclear war, so do not believe fear of war with Russia -particularly after being ground down by Ukraine- is a valid concern. But Ukraine having acceptable political system and being ready to integrate with NATO military tactics is important. Tough to learn new tricks train with others when fighting a war, and nobody can predict when it will end, so no point of having a join timeline.

Zelenskyy will eventually accept what Ukraine is getting and if he truly wants in he will determine then address the concerns some members have about Ukraine NATO accession ASAP. The G7 NATO members are making some big spending commitments to help Ukraine fight in the interim, so even if Ukraine can’t get those things done ASAP, it’s still being given support to remain viable until it does.

Arguably, the situation in Ukraine is absolutely not viable. They are suffering mass casualties, their economy is shot, and they are reliant on the continued good will of countries that (in the Ukrainian view) have left them in the lurch at least twice before. How long can this go on? Obviously, Zelenskyy has to accept what Ukraine is getting, he has no choice. However, he will lobby and work for more. It is a tribute to his leadership Ukraine is doing as well as it is. However, he is fully aware that there are limits, and he really doesn't want to run up against them.

NATO has shown that it really doesn't want to allow Ukraine or Georgia to be absorbed into the Russian Federation. It has also extended offers of membership that did not result in the admission of those countries, despite repeated requests from these countries. NATO has also demonstrated that it will not go to war to protect either one, at least so far. These facts are regarded with a jaundiced eye in Ukraine and Georgia, for obvious reasons. Can the NATO policy work? That is very much TBD.

Militarily, NATO membership for Ukraine and Georgia has always been regarded as a "bridge too far". Nobody wanted to sign up for that, independent of any other "requirements" on their societies. That is, IMO, the most significant issue and it has never been addressed. Until it is, admitting them to NATO isn't going to go well.

---

RE: Way OT: Ukraine - GK3 - 07-12-2023

(07-12-2023, 02:53 AM)OutsiderFan Wrote:  

(07-11-2023, 11:47 AM)TrumpCard Wrote:  

(07-10-2023, 02:23 PM)Goose Wrote:  Indeed a good point. There is a lot of real uncertainty out there. Add Vietnam to the nations that are actively and vocally worried about the behavior of China. Uncertainty also opens the door wider to miscalculations, so the danger grows. Ukraine and Georgia in NATO is a US military nightmare, but we may sooner rather than later be confronted with that reality.

I have never heard any chatter about letting Georgia join NATO. Why would NATO countries want to take on that obligation for a tiny country with little strategic value that is not at all feasible to defend from Russian aggression?

While tiny countries don’t offer as much in return as they are given, NATO sees itself as a peace enabling force. The more countries are members the less likely there will be conflict. The problem NATO had pre RU invasion was not enough countries were living up to their commitments to finance their defense and NATO forces were stretched thin. I remember before Russia’s attack on Ukraine that there was great concern a NATO country could be invaded by Russia, most likely Estonia, Latvia, or Lithuania, and even uncertainty NATO would have the balls to act if this happened. Would Germany with Russian appeaser Merkel and weakened military have gotten involved when so reliant on Russian energy? UK? U.S.?

I don’t mean to be harsh about this, but Ukraine and Georgia only have themselves to blame for not getting into NATO already. They got too close to Russia with Putin-friendly governments for a while and when war started Ukraine had Russian equipment. Nobody wants to talk about these important details when complaining about the 2008 “promise” not being kept.

If Zelenskyy can’t understand the difference between now and 2008 I don’t know what to say. His country is now totally pro-democracy, has been attacked by Russia and is getting ongoing support from NATO countries to beat Russia back. It is in NATO member interest to get Ukraine in NATO now in a much bigger way than before, to say nothing of the value an experienced fighting force Ukraine will bring.  But there are qualification standards that must be met too.

Those wanting to be more deliberate have sound reasoning. Putin and Russian oligarchs don’t want their lives to end in nuclear war, so do not believe fear of war with Russia -particularly after being ground down by Ukraine- is a valid concern. But Ukraine having acceptable political system and being ready to integrate with NATO military tactics is important. Tough to learn new tricks train with others when fighting a war, and nobody can predict when it will end, so no point of having a join timeline.

Zelenskyy will eventually accept what Ukraine is getting and if he truly wants in he will determine then address the concerns some members have about Ukraine NATO accession ASAP. The G7 NATO members are making some big spending commitments to help Ukraine fight in the interim, so even if Ukraine can’t get those things done ASAP, it’s still being given support to remain viable until it does.

My big question is how is all going to end?
Would Putin be willing to call off the hounds short of conquering Ukraine?  
Ukraine's losses have been such I am not sure they would agree to anything short of return to pre 2014 borders.  
Can Russian losses, both human and financial, cause Putin to be ousted and someone new to come in who is willing to end the war?
How long will the West continue to provide money and munitions?
The West seems better able to replace the equipment losses suffered by Ukraine that Russia is of replacing its equipment losses.
I just don't see this mess ending anytime soon.

---