[Goose]

Context matters, and “aggression” by a NATO member is relative when we are talking about a Russian war of aggression against Ukraine. Had this war started because of a Ukrainian push to recapture Crimea or the areas of Donbas they don’t control, we might be treating it more like Azerbaijan’s bid to recapture Nagorno-Karabakh, which is to say evenif we had sympathies, we would have stayed out of it.

I think you are correct. It is unfortunate that you are, because ignoring the Russian actions in Crimea is part of what got us here.

An attack on a NATO member would be viewed as an escalation.  NATO members, excepting Hungary and maybe Turkey are sympathetic enough to Ukraine to believe that arming the Ukrainians is justified. The balance of opinion as a result of Russian war crimes in Bucha, Mariupol, and elsewhere (as well as the Ukrainian success early in the war) has slowly been shifting towards more, rather than less, intervention.  As The NY Times article has noted, we are doing things that we were previously reluctant to do, and this is broadly supported by the population of most NATO countries (indeed, the debate is whether we should be doing “more”).

I agree here. Turkey is already fulfilling it's contractual obligations to Ukraine. They are "inside the tent" as much as they can be given their situation.

 An attack on NATO would probably move the needle into further intervention.

Here is where I think you are wrong. I wish you weren't. So far, the actions taken by the NATO states are "free". It may cost us money, but our people aren't at risk and our cities are safe. The minute that is no longer true for the European nations, there will be a big "whoa" moment. They are going to have to decide if they are willing to accept casualties to help Ukraine. I very strongly believe many of these countries will not.

The political leaders in the West have slowly increased what we are willing to provide. When Putin does nothing, we ratchet it up. When Putin finally does something, the calculus changes. The European leaders aren't preparing their people to go to war. They are not in most cases politically strong enough to even suggest such a thing. The Mike Tyson effect will come as a shock. I have no expectation that these countries will hang tough at that point. If the German government can't muster the political will to turn off the Russian gas because it might cause a recession, can we expect that same government to risk missile strikes on it's cities to support Ukraine? I think not.

So, while I don’t think we would directly attack Russia, I could see a retaliatory strike or providing more material support for Ukraine (maybe not quite a no fly zone, but at least air support).

BC

Could be, but this does create a scenario where the US kills Russians, something Biden has so far carefully avoided. Frankly, I have no idea if he would do this, and I am not sanguine that either the US military or the US Congress would agree this is a good idea.

[Goose]

Context matters, and “aggression” by a NATO member is relative when we are talking about a Russian war of aggression against Ukraine. Had this war started because of a Ukrainian push to recapture Crimea or the areas of Donbas they don’t control, we might be treating it more like Azerbaijan’s bid to recapture Nagorno-Karabakh, which is to say evenif we had sympathies, we would have stayed out of it.

I think you are correct. It is unfortunate that you are, because ignoring the Russian actions in Crimea is part of what got us here.

An attack on a NATO member would be viewed as an escalation.  NATO members, excepting Hungary and maybe Turkey are sympathetic enough to Ukraine to believe that arming the Ukrainians is justified. The balance of opinion as a result of Russian war crimes in Bucha, Mariupol, and elsewhere (as well as the Ukrainian success early in the war) has slowly been shifting towards more, rather than less, intervention.  As The NY Times article has noted, we are doing things that we were previously reluctant to do, and this is broadly supported by the population of most NATO countries (indeed, the debate is whether we should be doing “more”).

I agree here. Turkey is already fulfilling it's contractual obligations to Ukraine. They are "inside the tent" as much as they can be given their situation.

 An attack on NATO would probably move the needle into further intervention.

Here is where I think you are wrong. I wish you weren't. So far, the actions taken by the NATO states are "free". It may cost us money, but our people aren't at risk and our cities are safe. The minute that is no longer true for the European nations, there will be a big "whoa" moment. They are going to have to decide if they are willing to accept casualties to help Ukraine. I very strongly believe many of these countries will not.

The political leaders in the West have slowly increased what we are willing to provide. When Putin does nothing, we ratchet it up. When Putin finally does something, the calculus changes. The European leaders aren't preparing their people to go to war. They are not in most cases politically strong enough to even suggest such a thing. The Mike Tyson effect will come as a shock. I have no expectation that these countries will hang tough at that point. If the German government can't muster the political will to turn off the Russian gas because it might cause a recession, can we expect that same government to risk missile strikes on it's cities to support Ukraine? I think not.

So, while I don’t think we would directly attack Russia, I could see a retaliatory strike or providing more material support for Ukraine (maybe not quite a no fly zone, but at least air support).

BC

Could be, but this does create a scenario where the US kills Russians, something Biden has so far carefully avoided. Frankly, I have no idea if he would do this, and I am not sanguine that either the US military or the US Congress would agree this is a good idea.