I didn't mean literally that they'd root for Trump, I just meant they would be against NATO. Trump spent much of his presidency attacking NATO and the "what does NATO actually do?" became an actual question. I do not believe Americans would be gungho about enforcing NATO treaties and risking nuclear war to go defend Latvia. I think we could actually see NATO collapse if Russia invaded one of those countries.
I agree that expanding NATO to eastern block countries was a risky move but given Russia's recent actions its hard to debate whether it was justified or not. Clearly Russia is proving the justification. Of course I think if we had put more into turning Russia into a stable democracy it would have paid off more (and i understand many will say that wasn't possible). That said, if a NATO country is attacked, NATO must respond decisively. The biggest single mistake Obama made in foreign policy was not doing anything when Syria used chemical weapons. When you draw a red line, you must enforce it no matter what the political cost - otherwise don't draw it. NATO has drawn the line. If Russia attacks a NATO nation, it can not go without a response, otherwise Russia will be embolden to attack again. That is the definition of weakness.
I don't disagree with anything you are saying theoretically, I'm just saying I'm not confident that if Russia actually were to attack NATO countries that are former Soviet states that the current version of NATO would hold. I'm really not sure.
Or when the source has been caught deliberately spreading agenda driven misinformation, you blame the source. That is the case Andy https://www.latimes.com/entertainme...ngo-new-book-still-pretends-antifa-real-enemy
As this invasion draws on, how badly will the Russian military be weakened with the massive heavy equipment loses? Russia will be a Chinese vassal by the end of the year.
It wouldn't just be those countries (like Latvia, Estonia, and Lithuania) that would be attacked. It would be troops from other NATO countries (like the UK, USA, Poland, etc) that are already in those country that would be under attack. I'm sure NATO would hold together (if that's what you meant). If you meant could we actually hold the territory that depends on the timing and nature of the attack and forces involved.
I think the military response would be too fast and rapid for a political pull out (which normally takes over 1 year). Under different circumstances (a different President), I would agree with you it's much more likely to be considered (if not already dead).
It then falls back to the earlier question over appeasement and future consequences. If cultural/ethnic hegemons trump treaties or defense pacts, then China has free rein over regions like Taiwan, Tibet, N. Korea, and the East China Sea. Or whatever happens in the muddled mess called the Middle East is justifiable. Western Powers are still operating this as a resource and strategic asset grab. Crimea solidifies their stranglehold on the Black Sea and everything gas related. Given how Germany was reluctant to the very last minute, I don't think Russia is fearful of a coordinated allied invasion to the point that justifies a Russian attack on former Soviet or Warsaw Pact states. But maybe the leader after Putin took even more careful notes on consolidating power and exploits the rose tinted elderly to justify aggressive expansion through cultural nationalistic cliches. That's seems to be driving the Xi/CCP in light of not having anymore productive infrastructure to build in the last decade...
THE WARGAME BEFORE THE WAR: RUSSIA ATTACKS UKRAINE In the two weeks prior to the Russian invasion of Ukraine, Marine Corps University ran a four-day wargame to simulate the first several days of just such an invasion. One of us ran the wargame while the others played the Ukrainian and Russian forces. Despite a few stark differences, the current Russian offensive is playing out in ways eerily similar to that simulation. By the time the wargame ended, the overall situation appeared very much as it does on the ground in Ukraine, with only two major deviations. First, the Russians have pushed harder out of Belarus to the west of the Dneiper — north of Kyiv — to strike the city from the rear. And secondly, the Russian assault in Kherson was temporarily halted, as the axis of advance in the south for a time turned northeast toward Mariupol. Both of these actions were, however, discussed by the players in the wargame. Another difference was in the impact of the Russian air and missile campaign. In the game, Russian operations began with a series of missile and airstrikes, aimed at eliminating Ukraine’s air force and destroying the country’s integrated air defense system. Thus, the Russian players’ primary focus, during the first few days of the campaign, was aimed at gaining freedom of maneuver in the skies — air dominance — along with destroying Ukraine’s coastal defense systems. So, although the number of actual strikes made by the Russians in the conflict’s first 24-hours tracked almost exactly to what was employed by the Russians in the wargame, the impact was substantially different. In the wargame, every strike was focused on eliminating Ukraine’s air force and air defense network. In real life, the Russian strikes appear to have been more widely spread over a range of targets. Thus, the Russians employed far fewer munitions than required to cripple Ukraine’s air defenses or to significantly degrade their ability to control forces in the field. In short, unlike in the game, the Russian attacks were damaging but insufficient to overwhelm Ukraine’s defenses. more: https://warontherocks.com/2022/03/the-wargame-before-the-war-russia-attacks-ukraine/
I agree somewhat, but I don't know if Ukraine had nukes, it would have made much of a difference. I don't see Ukraine playing the nuclear card.
Yeah, I meant hold together not hold the territory. I am not confident that NATO countries wouldn't keep appeasing rather than honor Article 5 which would essentially render NATO obsolete. I hear (read) what everyone is saying about why they are confident it wouldn't happen, I'm just not sure. There is such a huge movement here AND the UK that I'm not really sure anymore that NATO would hold together.
Isn't the expectation that Russia will eventually take Ukraine and yes, the Ukraine President would be gone, either dead or in some safe spot?
Right. Like this genuinely disturbed me. Kelly said his greatest achievement as chief of staff was stopping Trump from leaving NATO. The answer to that from the right wasn't to attack him and defend NATO, it was to ignore it if you are a mainstream elected but to ACTUALLY DEBATE IT if you are a nut job on Fox. If Trump is re-elected in two years I think there is a strong chance NATO is dead without objection from his base.
