Do you think former Warsaw Pact members in NATO are invasion targets for Putin? Poland seemed like its chomping at the bit for its own safety,
My 2 cents is that Putin's plan was for Ukraine to be like Poland in 1939 where he just overwhelms and decimates them so badly that neighboring countries just fold and roll over into some sort of alliance. I think Belarus gave him a false sense of popularity to the idea that the former Soviet States had enough popularity to the idea that it would be easy sell. Poland's shift towards right wing populism over the past 5 or 6 years too probably informed his thinking that he wouldn't have to do much to get Poland to roll over. So are they invasion targets.... probably not much anymore. I don't think Putin's army is strong enough to even take over Moldova at this point. If they were to have blitzed Ukraine with minimal losses, and rolled their military into Russia's the way Germany did with Czech and Poland... yeah... Poland could have been the next big target to get invaded. Now though I think Putin, IF he manages to take control of Ukraine, is probably 5 years away from being able to build up what he'd need militarily to invade on that scale again.
Even the cats in Ukraine are doing their part to let the Russians know how welcome they are: Also, another guy got car-bommbed today so looks like that's going to be a thing going forward: https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/19603065/putin-chief-killed-car-bomb/
I think 5 years is way too optimistic given their leadership structure, infrastructure, capabilities, and overall corruption that stymies progress in any meaningful reform. I guess it's a good thing Ukraine is still alive after Russia's shock and awe? They're more a hegemonic bully that would rather steamroll Georgia than saber rattle Poland. I can understand Poland, Lithuania or Estonia having a "survivor's guilt" of sorts for being safe through NATO/EU membership, but that doesn't seem to play as well as Russia being a worldwide threat and terror. Putin seems to be running the Saddam model (which is ripped off of USSR taught authoritarian thought leadership) of overplaying the worst while taking in calculated and decisive small wins. There's also an economic imperative for them destroying Ukraine's infrastructure as their gas monopoly was a strong card to hang over Europe while also bankrolling their lavish corruption as a Petro state. I don't see the same with Poland as they don't have any competing gas pipelines. Don't get me wrong. Putin is a stick in our eye and is more than worthy for an ass kicking. I just don't think it's a global Defcon3 level threat, and I get pretty skeptical when commentators start playing that "global aggressor" card in light of bankrolling our trillion dollar per year military. Freeing Ukraine is a good enough story. If only we haven't used "freeing nations" so cynically over the past 20 years.
Does NATO have a responsibility to defend its partner countries like Ukraine? I don't know, I suppose that is up to NATO. Under the charter NATO isn't guaranteed to defend partner countries, but I am not aware of anything that prevents it. NATO hasn't sent in troops anyway.
Those things aren't mutually exclusive. Stopping Russia in Ukraine helps protect NATO countries. Two world wars should have taught us to stop these European conflicts at the source instead of waiting.
Somewhat fascinating to watch the terror tactics of car bombs on Russia VIPs....and dare I say even root them on. The Ukraine situation, while tragic, might eventually be an important triggering event that writes the blueprint on how to deter marauding aggressive super (esque) powers in the modern age, while seemingly completely avoiding the risk of nuclear attacks. This "war" is essentially destroying Russia's economy while gaining them very little. It has been an absolute disaster for Russia. There will be lessons learned here on how to quickly and efficiently usher weapons into defending nations. We now live in a time where a very cheap and simple drone can counter a convoy of military vehicles. Also the established global trade market makes coordinated sanctions and economic warfare devastating to countries that get out of line. While the death is extremely tragic, this could very well change global dynamics going forward, and that could be a very good thing. The path of least resistance is simply to play nice, trade and profit.
NATO was formed for that very reason. NATO is not an exclusive club. The non-NATO countries in the region choose not to be part of NATO for a reason. Believing NATO is an arm of the UN or some faction of world police is dangerous. Germany can make a case that they should invade Russia since Russia is playing games with LNG. Perhaps NATO should invade China to secure all those rare earth metals since they have become very important in day to day activities.
Excellent reporting on the fight for Kyiv. Battle for Kyiv: Ukrainian valor, Russian blunders combined to save the capital By Paul Sonne, Isabelle Khurshudyan, Serhiy Morgunov and Kostiantyn Khudov Aug. 24 at 2:00 a.m. KYIV, Ukraine — A hail of shrapnel from kamikaze drones ripped through the tent where off-duty Ukrainian border guards were sleeping near a crossing with Belarus, three hours north of Ukraine’s capital. Viktor Derevyanko woke to scalding pain, his body burning. Blood spilled from his hand as he tried to wipe his face. A piece of metal had traveled through his arm and stomach and into the muscle around his heart. “I couldn’t get my bearings,” said Derevyanko, the deputy head of the unit. “Only on the third explosion did I manage to fall out of bed and try to find at least someplace to hide, because the explosions weren’t ending.” It was around 4:15 a.m. on Feb. 24. Hours earlier, Derevyanko and the other Ukrainian guards had been joking dismissively about President Biden yet again warning of a Russian invasion. Now they were its first target. Within minutes, Russian missiles began soaring out of their launchers. They pounded Ukrainian air defenses, radar batteries, ammunition depots, airfields and bases, filling the early morning with the sounds of war. ... https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/interactive/2022/kyiv-battle-ukraine-survival/
Other posters have answered pretty much as I would. NATO doesn’t have a responsibility to police the World but NATO certainly has interest especially in its borders where it could threaten member countries or be draw into a wider war. Note in Ukraine NATO isn’t actual fighting. While NATO countries are providing aid they aren’t doing so under the NATO charter. That was why there was so much confusion when Poland offered MiGs to Ukraine but flew them to Germany where there was no clear sense of how to get them to Ukraine.
Ukraine has been begging to join NATO since it gained it's freedom - they didn't "choose not to part of NATO". It is the very definition of an exclusive club - we see that in the Finland/Sweden ascension process. Beyond that, NATO countries are friends and allies, independent of NATO. They work together. They decided as a group that fighting Russia in Ukraine is a good idea and will help protect their own interests. As judoka noted, nothing stops the countries from individually helping and coordinating their help. No one is making any NATO country come to defense of Ukraine.
There's definitely some weird chess match going on with pre-defined ground rules we won't know about. I'm still pissed at Russian hacking and the chaos in Europe that amplified Brexit voters or populist nationalist groups, but Russia would say that their response to the first round of sanctions heaped on them for invading Crimea. Putin also tipped the balance in Syria with a game of chicken that they could gloat as "winning." Destabilizing democracy through leaks, lobbyist groups or a troll army isn't enough to declare war, but I'd support lengths to shove it back down their throats.
Germany thought the same thing in WW2. There are plenty of more men in Russia that Putin can throw at the "Nazi" front lines. Putin can not lose this war and we must assume that Putin will continue to throw blood and treasure at the war.
The question is does the west push Putin to use tactical nukes in Ukraine? Probably why there is a limit to what kind of support the west gives Ukraine.
Nothing about this argument makes any sense. If he's going to use tactical nukes if he can't win otherwise, and the West is guaranteeing he can't win otherwise, then he will eventually use them. The fact that he hasn't already despite now having problems in Crimea suggests he's not going that route. And moreso, the longer he waits to use them, the worse his situation because his military is going to be more and more depleted, which means if the west gets pissed off by it, it will be easier for them to go even harder at Russia. Russia knows that they can't use nukes. It's possible his generals wouldn't even allow it, similar to how our military was taking precautions with Trump - they value their lives and positions too. Putin is arrogant, but he is not suicidal. This has always been the case.
