from 2017 resonates with me (see link)...especially with what we've learned about Putin and Trump in the intervening years...btw, I have no idea how credible the author, Molly McKew, is but she seems to have enough of the education, experience and language skills to join in the conversation...that being said, here are some of my thoughts ...beyond the specific issue of NATO expansion/contraction which I also welcome your comments on...
>IMO Putin...being brought up in the Soviet system as a KGB Colonel...seems to have taken the demise of the USSR 'personally' and along with a number of others, feels "humiliated" and wants to purge that feeling...like it's his only goal in life...consequently...
>Putin blames the USA and is willing do whatever it takes to remove us as an impediment to his obvious desire to promote autocracy and Russian 'hegemony' over Europe.
>Since we (USA) have a domestic and international interest in maintaining democracy, free trade, etc...I fell it is truly in our own interest to make sure that he is not successful.
>To that end, building as strong an opposition as possible to Vlad should be an objective of ours...meaning a united front by ALL European nations that seek democracy...and IF Ukraine wants "in", we should encourage that move...but it needs to be Ukraine's objective.
>From what I've observed, Ukraine has had its fill of Russian influence and - with the exception of their Donbas citizens - very much want to remain free and democratic...so, while it is not tactically feasible to join them in opposing Russia militarily, beyond weapons and technology support, we can and should marshall as much NATO political power as possible...
>To that end, it appears that Blinken got Germany's new Chancellor to 'nod' in agreement (sorry, couldn't resist ;-)) to the threat of cancelling Nord Stream 2, if Putin invaded Ukraine...that's the kind of NATO strength that could make a difference...
Again, very interested in hearing your thoughts on NATO...
Link: https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2017/01/putins-real-long-game-214589/
(no message)
....this is an excellent article with some valid points. But I think that it goes farther than it need to go.
1) Closing NATO to new membership is a larger decision than simply saying no membership for Ukraine. Such a broad decision to exclude all new members could come back to haunt NATO allies should the East form a more organized alliance. It is easy to say that NATO could just reverse its' decision someday, but its' management requires consensus that could prove problematic. It also sends a potentially deleterious message to other friendly nonmember nations that could open up a lot of other issues unnecessarily. It could also push those countries away toward our enemies.
2) I am concerned about the appeasement aspect of this move with Putin. he rattles his saber, NATO jumps to exclude Ukraine, and in a few years, Putin takes back the rest of Ukraine (or as much territory as he wants and thinks that he can hold). In some ways, this decision to exclude Ukraine from NATO to appease Putin simply kicks the can down the road and announces to the world that the Ukrainian people are on their own, and its territory belong to Russia someday at the time of its' choosing.
FWIW, I wonder if the best solution at present is to make no announcement on Ukraine (but if NATO does exclude them - make it just them, not a broad "closed to new members" for the above reason), and simply let Putin know that we plan to arm the Ukrainians copiously if he invades. We will give him a new Afghanistan in an even larger country (I know there are big cultural differences between Ukraine and Afghanistan, but there are many, many Ukrainians who hate Russia.....let's not exclude them publicly and make them hate us too).
If the decision is to exclude Ukraine from NATO, then do it down the road when it isn't a gesture of appeasement to Putin.
Your thoughts?
But I sure welcome the chance. Maybe 2022 is going to see a whole new Open Forum!
I think we overdo the appeasement analogy. Putin is not Hitler. If it were up to me, NATO would not have expanded to where it is now. But we certainly would not be safer if we let in Ukraine or Georgia or anyone else. I think we could try to get some sort of neutral status for Ukraine - similar to how Finland was treated during the Cold War - and have Putin relax a bit.
Russian interests in Ukraine are much more vital than ours are. And I do not think it is worth risking conflict over.
for the Ukraine would seem to leave NATO more flexibility down the road.
The specific threat of simply arming the Ukrainians (should Russia invade) will make Putin hesitate more than any other bargaining chip that we have it seems to me....especially now that he has an extremely valuable yet vulnerable oil pipelines.
Look at the number of them to protect going through Ukraine.
I hope that we have not taken this "lesser than war" option off of the table....it is our strongest chip.
(no message)
(no message)
potentially including anti-aircraft missiles, and 'other support to the Ukrainian military to resist invading Russian forces,' as well as 'similar logistical support to insurgent groups if Russia topples the Ukrainian government and a guerrilla war begins.'"
I'm sure Russia will react kindly to this, and this has no chance of spinning out of control.
The only one who didn’t was Obama. And he refused to arm Ukraine.
1) I agree NATO should not expand. I agree this issue is not partisan. We can disagree on it, but I don't consider this to be a partisan issue. (Although I dare say if Trump tried to do this, he would be accused of doing it for Putin. This is what Putin wants, after all...it just also happens to be a the right move for many reasons. Just shows you how ridiculous all those accusations were.)
2) Doesn't NATO have treaty obligations to defend Ukraine?...obligations that NATO volunteered for in order to convince Ukraine to naively turn over their nukes to Russia? (Maybe not NATO, but at least the US and UK?)
That is not membership, in that there is no shared training and the like. But, it is a defense pact by at least some NATO nations, which, if war broke out, might trigger NATO action. I don't know the terms of it...just that promises were made. So, to some partial degree, it has already been done with Ukraine.
There are to defend the Baltic countries, should Putin look up there. We are treaty-obligated to risk New York for Riga.
But we have no obligations to come to the aid of Ukraine. And neither do any of the European countries.
And if this all was anyone's fault, it was Bill Clinton. Starting the expansion machine got us in this dilemma.
I remember the promises being made, but not any actual ratification of a treaty.
I assume other countries know by now that they cannot trust anything our presidents do without confirmation by the Senate.
I didn't know it was this easy! Who can we grab for LA and San Francisco?
will most likely take Donbas. Under Biden, based on his policy of arming "insurgents," a broader war may break out.
Fact: You voted for all this.
All of it.
(no message)
That is, almost all GOP criticized Dems for not doing it, and would do it now to deter Russian aggression. I'm not advocating; I'm just pointing this fact out.
Expansion of NATO is a separate issue.
People who are thinking about what is best for their party (which includes almost all politicians) are not thinking about what is best for the country. In my classes we very rarely use the words "Republican" or "Democrat."
Because politics is the enemy.
(no message)