[Goose]

The quid pro quo is a security guarantee.  Without a security guarantee, the gauzy prospect of mineral development is not very attractive.

I agree that the "security guarantee" is Ukraine's quid pro quo. However, by now Ukraine knows that such security guarantees are meaningless. They had Minsk I and Minsk II. They has statements from the United States saying we would stand by them in this war "as long as it takes". The simple fact is that the US and the European community is unwilling to commit troops to the defense of Ukraine, period. This has been amply demonstrated since 2014.

There were two definite times when the Russian military carved off pieces of Ukraine. Both times Ukraine had security commitments from the US. We did nothing at all the first time and provided military aid the second time. If the US had been unequivocally committed to Ukrainian victory and delivered aid fast enough and in adequate quantity  to achieve it, that could have "counted" as honoring our security guarantee. We weren't and we didn't.

The reason Ukraine became so attached to NATO membership (never a realistic option for many reasons) was that they knew security guarantees hadn't worked. They were simply ignored by the guarantors. Ukraine hoped that the NATO alliance was precious  enough to the US and other NATO countries that they would be unwilling to reveal NATO as a total "paper tiger". Refusing to act on an Article 5 invocation by Ukraine as a member state would do exactly that. That is, understandably enough, one reason Ukraine would never be accepted as a NATO member.

The Baltic states are in an even worse position than Ukraine. They simply aren't big enough to win with any amount of material military aid from the rest of NATO. They are NATO member states. They will absolutely need NATO to send troops and actually fight. Will the US fight if Russia attacks Estonia and Latvia on the way to Lithuania? I suspect there are now grave doubts in those nations that we will. That will certainly make Poland nervous as well. The small contingents of US troops present in the Baltic states are our "hostage force" that commits us to fight there. The assumption is that once there are US casualties we will be committed. While IMO it isn't absolutely certain that is true today, removing those contingents arguably makes the statement we won't honor our commitments there, period. The danger of course is that Russia will interpret it that way, whatever our "true" intent may be. It greatly increases the probability that Russia (Putin) will attempt to recapture the Baltic states believing NATO has abandoned them. The Korean War was enabled by Russia believing that the failure of Secretary of State Dean Acheson to mention Korea as part of our "defensive perimeter" meant we wouldn't fight if North Korea invaded it. There is precedent for such misinterpretation leading to armed conflict.

Hitler believed that Britain and France would not actually fight a war over Poland. He had seen them ignore his repeated violations of the Treaty of Versailles. Both Britain and France actually assisted in his dismemberment of Czechoslovakia rather than oppose it by force.  Czechoslovakia had guarantees of self-determination in the Treaty of Versailles. France had a bilateral defense treaty with them. Why would Poland be any different? While Britain and France had issued statements saying they would support Poland, why should Hitler believe them? Neither one had any forces in place that could actually intervene in Poland anyway. We know what happened subsequently. When talking about WW III one side misreading the other is IMO the major danger.

[Goose]

The quid pro quo is a security guarantee.  Without a security guarantee, the gauzy prospect of mineral development is not very attractive.

I agree that the "security guarantee" is Ukraine's quid pro quo. However, by now Ukraine knows that such security guarantees are meaningless. They had Minsk I and Minsk II. They has statements from the United States saying we would stand by them in this war "as long as it takes". The simple fact is that the US and the European community is unwilling to commit troops to the defense of Ukraine, period. This has been amply demonstrated since 2014.

There were two definite times when the Russian military carved off pieces of Ukraine. Both times Ukraine had security commitments from the US. We did nothing at all the first time and provided military aid the second time. If the US had been unequivocally committed to Ukrainian victory and delivered aid fast enough and in adequate quantity  to achieve it, that could have "counted" as honoring our security guarantee. We weren't and we didn't.

The reason Ukraine became so attached to NATO membership (never a realistic option for many reasons) was that they knew security guarantees hadn't worked. They were simply ignored by the guarantors. Ukraine hoped that the NATO alliance was precious  enough to the US and other NATO countries that they would be unwilling to reveal NATO as a total "paper tiger". Refusing to act on an Article 5 invocation by Ukraine as a member state would do exactly that. That is, understandably enough, one reason Ukraine would never be accepted as a NATO member.

The Baltic states are in an even worse position than Ukraine. They simply aren't big enough to win with any amount of material military aid from the rest of NATO. They are NATO member states. They will absolutely need NATO to send troops and actually fight. Will the US fight if Russia attacks Estonia and Latvia on the way to Lithuania? I suspect there are now grave doubts in those nations that we will. That will certainly make Poland nervous as well. The small contingents of US troops present in the Baltic states are our "hostage force" that commits us to fight there. The assumption is that once there are US casualties we will be committed. While IMO it isn't absolutely certain that is true today, removing those contingents arguably makes the statement we won't honor our commitments there, period. The danger of course is that Russia will interpret it that way, whatever our "true" intent may be. It greatly increases the probability that Russia (Putin) will attempt to recapture the Baltic states believing NATO has abandoned them. The Korean War was enabled by Russia believing that the failure of Secretary of State Dean Acheson to mention Korea as part of our "defensive perimeter" meant we wouldn't fight if North Korea invaded it. There is precedent for such misinterpretation leading to armed conflict.

Hitler believed that Britain and France would not actually fight a war over Poland. He had seen them ignore his repeated violations of the Treaty of Versailles. Both Britain and France actually assisted in his dismemberment of Czechoslovakia rather than oppose it by force.  Czechoslovakia had guarantees of self-determination in the Treaty of Versailles. France had a bilateral defense treaty with them. Why would Poland be any different? While Britain and France had issued statements saying they would support Poland, why should Hitler believe them? Neither one had any forces in place that could actually intervene in Poland anyway. We know what happened subsequently. When talking about WW III one side misreading the other is IMO the major danger.