| Tango01 | 08 Jun 2021 10:08 p.m. PST |
"Why did Russia deploy roughly 100,000 troops to the Ukrainian border earlier this year? The move alarmed Western policymakers from the Baltics to the Beltway about the possibility of an all-out invasion. While Moscow ultimately redeployed some of those troops and the crisis deescalated, the buildup highlights Ukraine's vulnerability and the West's powerlessness to Russian hard power in the region…" link Main page
link Armand |
| John the OFM | 08 Jun 2021 10:18 p.m. PST |
|
| Striker | 09 Jun 2021 1:03 a.m. PST |
|
| Dragon Gunner | 09 Jun 2021 5:56 a.m. PST |
|
 Murphy  | 09 Jun 2021 6:19 a.m. PST |
Only if they want a war in which they are drastically unprepared for (which is another way of saying that "US Military personnel will be fighting and dying in it because "we" as Europe don't have "enough" to fight the Russians")…. So the answer is HELL NO. |
| shadoe01 | 09 Jun 2021 6:26 a.m. PST |
No, no, no, no….and unless I haven't been clear, no! FWIW I was a member of the team that analyzed the military implications for the first expansion round applicants. My boss, since retired, was the best strategic thinking I've ever met. I've no doubt he'd agree. Adding the Ukraine and Georgia would dramatically increase our liabilities with very little – if anything – in return. Now there's a deal for you – bet the farm and if you win you get a cup of coffee. OMG! Also, FWIW, the 2nd round of expansion was after I left NATO. Some additions were obvious but some were – at least for me – eye brow raising. Nothing has happened since to change my mind on the 'poor wisdom' of that expansion. Of course, there's the time honoured tradition of reinforcing bad decisions with more bad decisions. |
 Legion 4  | 09 Jun 2021 7:29 a.m. PST |
Ah … no … Don't see any real advantage to it at this time. Of course, there's the time honoured tradition of reinforcing bad decisions with more bad decisions. Seems that has more & more become the standard/norm. Interestingly some always makes a profit regardless … |
| Sho Boki | 09 Jun 2021 7:33 a.m. PST |
|
| shadoe01 | 09 Jun 2021 7:50 a.m. PST |
Sho, a good question. I had the opportunity to remain working in NATO which would have meant I could have retired five years ago with a good pension. However, I had doubts about the long-term viability of the Alliance and hence future pension payments. I suspect the main reason for NATO's continued existence is fear for what would fill the vacuum. Status quo at least has the advantage of being the 'devil you know'. Plus, there has been the side-effect of increasing interoperability among the armed forces of NATO members. The effects of which are probably not widely appreciated but I can assure you that they are among the members of the armed forces of the various countries – including the United States. One only has to look at US operations with allies in Desert Storm to see that, those that conformed with NATO standards operated well while those that didn't were 'put to the side' – even if they had US equipment. ETA – Organizations take some time to wither when their reasons for existence has gone. It will be the same for NATO. One has to ask – how many NATO countries perceive an existential threat to themselves that they would risk global thermonuclear war, which, regardless of the talk about conventional forces, has been the 'real deterrent'. In fact the first time NATO ever considered whether or not conventional forces were adequate was post-Cold War with the 1993 Force Structure Review. |
| Legion 4 | 09 Jun 2021 7:57 a.m. PST |
One only has to look at US operations with allies in Desert Storm to see that, those that conformed with NATO standards operated well while those that didn't were 'put to the side' – even if they had US equipment. Bingo … interoperability works/wins … You want the guy on your flank to be on the same or similar playbook/FM as you are … It is still dangerous world our there … don't be in too much of a hurry to "beat swords into plowshares"… |
| SBminisguy | 09 Jun 2021 8:39 a.m. PST |
Too bad Ukraine bought Clinton's promises in the 1990s and didn't keep their nukes… |
| Shagnasty | 09 Jun 2021 8:54 a.m. PST |
No. I wish those countries well in their struggle with Putin's Russia but do not see an up side to our getting involved. |
| USAFpilot | 09 Jun 2021 9:19 a.m. PST |
|
| 0ldYeller | 09 Jun 2021 9:57 a.m. PST |
|
| Tango01 | 09 Jun 2021 2:45 p.m. PST |
|
| John the OFM | 09 Jun 2021 3:39 p.m. PST |
As they say in Game of Thrones, "I wish you good fortune in the wars to come." |
| Tango01 | 09 Jun 2021 10:09 p.m. PST |
|
| Heedless Horseman | 09 Jun 2021 10:47 p.m. PST |
No.
Does not mean that you cannot 'give strong Hints' or support in event of aggression…
NATO … or EEC 'Expansion' will become a 'Percieved' Threat, 'Requiring' countermeasures. 1914 Alliances, anyone? |
paints up some Israeli mortar vehicles.
