Meanwhile In The Baltic Republics And Poland...

[Stuart Galbraith]

 

Absorbing Georgia or Ukraine, or even the Baltic republics, unnecessarily moves NATOs border up against Russia's to no effective gain. I don't believe in 'spheres of influence' so much as I believe in militarily over committing your resources. Ukraine would want to join NATO to add to its security, most likely. NATO would not take on Ukraine to add to its security, most likely. The Eastern European countries were low hanging fruit that were not immediately up against Russia proper and it made sense to integrate them into the EU and NATO for security and economic benefit. There's not really a good argument for the Baltics, and definitely not for Georgia and the Ukraine. NATO owes them nothing. I'm all for supplying both with whatever weapons they can handle, but this thread is proof that NATOs ability to defend some of its current members is already somewhat questionable and further commitments merely serve to erode confidence in the alliance.

 

The Baltics have done more for NATO/US in Iraq and Afghanistan and indeed in Mali and the Central African Republic than has been done for them.

 

Yes, thats true. And the Georgians bust a gut for us in Afghanistan too for that matter. A fat lot of good it did them when it came to it.

http://www.rferl.org/content/georgia-afghanistan-troop-deaths/24984994.html

[Stuart Galbraith]

Where does the Azov and other militia units fit in NATO? Does Ukraine joining NATO mean that they can invoke Article 5 upon accession? Work to be done is perhaps an understatement.

As others have pointed out, there are ways of working around it. When West Germany joined they did NOT include Berlin and East Germany among territories NATO was responsible for. Otherwise it might imply they could article 5 and NATO would invade East Germany, which was a non starter. So they were left out, and the treaty ONLY was responsible for territories that currently formed West Germany. And the same could be done for Ukraine. However one might feel about Crimea and East Ukraine, you could sign a document to day that says 'if there is any territorial encroachment on THIS remaining territory, NATO is involved'. Ditto Georgia too when you think about it.

 

And in actual fact, this has already happened. Estonia has a territorial dispute with Russia over at least one Border town. Im not aware they are able to article 5 their way to getting it back....

Edited July 15, 2016 by Stuart Galbraith

[Stuart Galbraith]

Ukraine is not ready to be a NATO member, that's very apparent to everybody involved. Even Ukrainians are talking in terms of 2022 at the earliest. That doesn't mean that the process can't start now, which in some respects it is.

I dont disagree actually. Its going to be a long term process. I mean most of the Eastern Europeans had issues converting to NATO procedures and equipment, even Poland is still working their way through it.

[Stuart Galbraith]

The Ukraine is quite bigger than Estonia, Lithuania, and Latvia. Those countries would need immediate support if large scale invasion was to happen. But the Ukraine is capable of some depth of defense strategy. So with good military weapons, they could put a real hurt on Russia if they open up a real war. Maybe the Ukraine would be gone, but Russia would really be paying a big price, so big it may put Italy's economic strength above it, which would be quite pathetic for a country with a 150 million population. So there's still deterrence in that. .NATO doesn't have to officially close the door to the idea of Ukraine membership but just make it a difficult process. Even if diplomacy may seem futile, it still probably ought to have some wiggle room to work.

I was listening to a lecture the other day, and something fairly obvious hit me with a brick. It should have been self evident but I, and most other people missed it. There is a very good reason why Putin cannot use the Russian Army to tear off a bit strip of Ukraine as he was mooted to be considering. The Russian Army isnt big enough to do it.

 

If it tried, it would end up with its constituent parts so separated, the Ukrainian Army would have no difficulty in killing it in detail. Or indeed anyone and an RPG launcher come to that. Ukraine is just too damn big for Russia to take and hold. Which is why I think they are doing what they are doing, biting off chunks to try and influence Kiev to play ball. Which it has to say has thus far been a miserable failure.

 

I mean lets do the math. Disallowing for VDV, there are 79 Brigades in the Russian Army. thats 3 infantry battalions at most (some have just one). So lets say an upward limit of 273 infantry battalions. Say maybe 20 more with Spetsnaz Even assuming they could deploy all those in Ukraine, would that be enough to take and hold onto it? Probably not. It sounds a lot, but not for the size of the territory it is.

 

 

Even with Interior Ministry troops it would I think be beyond them, and they must know this. And likely its true of the Baltic states too. It doesnt overlook the ability they have demonstrated to bite off chunks of nations, and hold onto them. In Georgia they have been doing bite and hold, stretched over years, to encroach on Georgian territory. And that certainly is a threat. But the Russian military, currently, is mainly an encourager to not try to reclaim territory lost, as happened in Georgia. Currently its not really of the size and capability to take new terrain of several hundred kilometres and hold onto it. Its not your grandmothers Soviet Army.

 

 

All said and done though, limited operations of a kind we saw in Georgia cannot be ruled out. Conquering a territory and then withdrawing after having demonstrated an ability to defeat the armies therein. Which for NATO in the Baltic states case would likely be fatal enough I would have thought.

[Josh]

 

Absorbing Georgia or Ukraine, or even the Baltic republics, unnecessarily moves NATOs border up against Russia's to no effective gain. I don't believe in 'spheres of influence' so much as I believe in militarily over committing your resources. Ukraine would want to join NATO to add to its security, most likely. NATO would not take on Ukraine to add to its security, most likely. The Eastern European countries were low hanging fruit that were not immediately up against Russia proper and it made sense to integrate them into the EU and NATO for security and economic benefit. There's not really a good argument for the Baltics, and definitely not for Georgia and the Ukraine. NATO owes them nothing. I'm all for supplying both with whatever weapons they can handle, but this thread is proof that NATOs ability to defend some of its current members is already somewhat questionable and further commitments merely serve to erode confidence in the alliance.

 

Yes, but you will pardon me saying, you are looking at it the wrong way around. Its not about gain. If it was about 'safe' people to guarantee the security of, we would not have let West Germany or Turkey or Norway join. Its about making sure the insecure are connected to a security system that guarantees their security. Or at the very least works to that end.

Norway makes perfect sense considering where the North Fleet has to sortie from to intervene in REFORGER. Ditto Iceland for that matter. Turkey was all about securing the southern flank. I think you put the cart before the horse - the countries that were practically dragged into NATO were done so with a keen mine to isolate the USSR on every front as part of containment, in an era where the US was superior in practically every quantitative and qualitative way. We are now operating at a deficit relatively, if not in absolute terms economically, in terms of political will. So extending your alliance that basically you don't care about and also puts no threat whatsoever on the enemy is stupid. Its just moral bullshit instead of the practicality NATO membership was originally made from. Its fine now to say it was the right answer, but at the time the cold war was in doubt and lots of underhanded things were done to *make* NATO members NATO members because it was in the best interest of...well mostly the US, but also I think the UK range in. Post cold war, members were just accepted because 'we won' without any consideration of what the long term consequences of brushing right up against Russia would be.

 

Put it this way, sans Baltic NATO members, would we be having a conversation about a Russia? Basically, make sure you can reinforce Poland, in case the _next_ country over is invaded by Russia. Pretty easy strategic dilema, isn't it? In what way would Russia amount to a hill of beans right now, unless you care about the Ukraine, and I personally don't.

[Stuart Galbraith]

 

 

Absorbing Georgia or Ukraine, or even the Baltic republics, unnecessarily moves NATOs border up against Russia's to no effective gain. I don't believe in 'spheres of influence' so much as I believe in militarily over committing your resources. Ukraine would want to join NATO to add to its security, most likely. NATO would not take on Ukraine to add to its security, most likely. The Eastern European countries were low hanging fruit that were not immediately up against Russia proper and it made sense to integrate them into the EU and NATO for security and economic benefit. There's not really a good argument for the Baltics, and definitely not for Georgia and the Ukraine. NATO owes them nothing. I'm all for supplying both with whatever weapons they can handle, but this thread is proof that NATOs ability to defend some of its current members is already somewhat questionable and further commitments merely serve to erode confidence in the alliance.

 

Yes, but you will pardon me saying, you are looking at it the wrong way around. Its not about gain. If it was about 'safe' people to guarantee the security of, we would not have let West Germany or Turkey or Norway join. Its about making sure the insecure are connected to a security system that guarantees their security. Or at the very least works to that end.

Norway makes perfect sense considering where the North Fleet has to sortie from to intervene in REFORGER. Ditto Iceland for that matter. Turkey was all about securing the southern flank. I think you put the cart before the horse - the countries that were practically dragged into NATO were done so with a keen mine to isolate the USSR on every front as part of containment, in an era where the US was superior in practically every quantitative and qualitative way. We are now operating at a deficit relatively, if not in absolute terms economically, in terms of political will. So extending your alliance that basically you don't care about and also puts no threat whatsoever on the enemy is stupid. Its just moral bullshit instead of the practicality NATO membership was originally made from. Its fine now to say it was the right answer, but at the time the cold war was in doubt and lots of underhanded things were done to *make* NATO members NATO members because it was in the best interest of...well mostly the US, but also I think the UK range in. Post cold war, members were just accepted because 'we won' without any consideration of what the long term consequences of brushing right up against Russia would be.

 

Put it this way, sans Baltic NATO members, would we be having a conversation about a Russia? Basically, make sure you can reinforce Poland, in case the _next_ country over is invaded by Russia. Pretty easy strategic dilema, isn't it? In what way would Russia amount to a hill of beans right now, unless you care about the Ukraine, and I personally don't.

 

I think you are missing my point. Norway was not admitted to Nato for its strategic utility. In 1949, the Soviet Navy was, not to put a fine point on it, pants. However Norway was vulnerable to attack overland. That being the case, it was Norways strategic vulnerability, not the advantages that it gave, that drove its admittance. Same wiht all the original member states actually.

 

Really we are accepting the Russian narrative that NATO is improving its position by accepting new nations, and applying the same logic to the original founding members in 1949. In actuality, its a pull process. Nations feel vulnerable, so they want to join NATO. We must stop giving the implicit acceptance tot he idea this is about containing Russia, and NATO pushing itself on member states. Even were it true, can anyone seriously suggest that NATO improved its strategic picture by accepting Montenegro?

 

I think we would still be having a conversation with Russia over NATO, if it still existed and they hadn't accepted any Eastern European states. The mindset that is driving this is post cold war victim narrative. In actual fact, you can listen to many of those lectures online with State Department people, DOD officials, and hear them say 'well we asked Russia if they had a problem with these states joining NATO and they didnt'. And there was no issue that arose until the present incumbent of the Kremlin drove the narrative of NATO encroachment.

[Chris Werb]

Stuart, you can't theorise the Russians chucking their entire army at the Ukraine. Remember that their land forces (something like 58% of them IIRC) are oriented toward China. I doubt that will change. They also have to have forces to counter potential melt downs in places like Chechnya and to face NATO in other areas where we might intervene if things spilled over. Then you have the issue that you need at least three units in existence to deploy one, except for very short periods. That Polish Colonel reckoned the Russians could stand up one division, plus one airborne brigade per MD in the first month, plus one division plus and airborne division in the 2nd with subsequent mobilisation at a similar rate. That said, I think they could take Ukraine. We could make it a lot harder for them simply by supplying the Ukraine with good ATGW and MANPADS. Ideally we would also give them area defence SAMs, Arthur C or similar and HIMARS.

 

Letting Ukraine and Georgia into NATO at a time when they have Russian troops occupying part of them is a non starter for obvious reasons.

[Stuart Galbraith]

Stuart, you can't theorise the Russians chucking their entire army at the Ukraine. Remember that their land forces (something like 58% of them IIRC) are oriented toward China. I doubt that will change. They also have to have forces to counter potential melt downs in places like Chechnya and to face NATO in other areas where we might intervene if things spilled over. Then you have the issue that you need at least three units in existence to deploy one, except for very short periods. That Polish Colonel reckoned the Russians could stand up one division, plus one airborne brigade per MD in the first month, plus one division plus and airborne division in the 2nd with subsequent mobilisation at a similar rate. That said, I think they could take Ukraine. We could make it a lot harder for them simply by supplying the Ukraine with good ATGW and MANPADS. Ideally we would also give them area defence SAMs, Arthur C or similar and HIMARS.

 

Letting Ukraine and Georgia into NATO at a time when they have Russian troops occupying part of them is a non starter for obvious reasons.

No, absolutely not. And that really is my point, that even if they had peak manpower for their current OOB, they still likely would be unable to do more than they are doing, biting and holding. True, they seem to have rotated battalions from ALL 79 Brigades through Ukraine. But as a large part of their army is still conscripts, and even Putin seems wary of upsetting the Babushka mafia, it does rather limit the forces he can bring to bear. And in something the size of Ukraine (or even Belarus for example) that is clearly an issue in post invasion stabilisation. Which is why I think this is not a likely scenario except in the very short term, such as occurred in Georgia. They really arent big enough to bite and hold an entire nation. Chunk of one? Well that they certainly have demonstrated a capability for. And cumulatively that is going to prove serious enough for Ukraine over a decade or two.

 

One might say 'well then lets not do anything at all'. I can't help but think the pernicious effect of hybrid war on Ukraine and its neighbours is almost as bad as the effect that the GSFG had on most of Western Europe in the cold war. The only good think is back then we knew they were highly unlikely to go on the big tank parade through Paris. Now, bite and hold is not just ongoing, its quite clearly state policy. Unless its a policy that is deterred, there is no reason to think why they are going to stop doing it. Sooner or later someone is going to try a bite and and hold on a Baltic state or someone we cant turn the other cheek for. This is after all not a Putin policy. They have done much the same thing since the early 1990s.

 

But Chris, we allowed Germany into NATO with Soviet troops occupying them. We are really rewriting the rulebook to suit the present situation if we say occupation is an exclusion. If you look at NATO's founding charter, it was not about upsetting the Soviets, it was about ensuring capable deterrent effect on all those that couldnt capably defend themselves. I really dont see why thats any different than the old days. They want the old cold war, well fine, lets retrench to the old attitudes too. Its about whether we support democracies and freedom of speech or not. Its very easy to get very precious about that, but considering the world index of democracies today is less than it was 5 years ago, its something of a nettle we are going to have to grasp or see more of them go down the tubes.

 

We have to resign ourselves tot he fact that whatever we do, we are going to upset Russia s long as NATO exists, and as long as there are political bloc's in Europe that they feel exclude them from bringing their influence to bear. I dont enjoy thinking that way. But is there any evidence they wont pick and choose any evidence they can find to support their narrative of separatism and exclusion? No. If NATO disappears tomorrow, the EU will be a threat. And I daresay if the EU goes tits up, they will find something else to complain about, like the European court of human rights, or gay marriage, or a hundred an other complaints they have against Liberal Democracies. Its a regime that requires external enemies to justify internal suppression. That is not going to disappear, even if ALL the perceived threats currently lined up against Russia disappear. I dont believe the same trends will disappear with Putin if he retires either. Many of them as political commentators have stated existed before him. He just made them his own and did them in his own inimitable fuck you style.

 

And that's why I think we should put more resources into expanding NATO. Because, when you get down to it, what difference does it make? We start retrenching because they make themselves a bloody nuisance, we are signalling to them they have a strategy that works. And it will get worse.

Edited July 15, 2016 by Stuart Galbraith

[urbanoid]

But Chris, we allowed Germany into NATO with Soviet troops occupying them.

 

And the thing is that Germany has recently become one of the loudest voices against NATO expansion. They present arguments which, if they were applied to them in the 1950s, would make their own accession to NATO impossible.

 

What I'm referring to is 2008 NATO summit, where both Berlin and Paris blocked MAP for Georgia and Ukraine.

[Stuart Galbraith]

 

But Chris, we allowed Germany into NATO with Soviet troops occupying them.

 

And the thing is that Germany has recently become one of the loudest voices against NATO expansion. They present arguments which, if they were applied to them in the 1950s, would make their own accession to NATO impossible.

 

What I'm referring to is 2008 NATO summit, where both Berlin and Paris blocked MAP for Georgia and Ukraine.

 

Yep.

 

I might add, Im not favouring NATO signing up for death or glory charges to get back East Ukraine or Crimea, or the lost territories of Georgia. If they want to return to their respective nations, then they should, but NATO should have no part in it either way. But It strikes me as absurd in the extreme to say it was OK to sign up West Germany because it was threatened by a 3 day tank offensive to the Rhine, and Ukraine (which equally has territories occupied) is threatened by a very much slower form of annexation. Surely the drive should be whom feels threatened, not how quickly the threat can develop?

 

Thats my view. And yes, im aware how dangerous what im suggesting is. I can only point to us playing softly and trying desperately not to offend Russia and making the problem worse. Because we fail to recognise, they are determined to be offended, and every time we capitulate on a corner of policy, it emboldens them to do it again. This is the reason why I think we absolutely must field ABM, even though I think it was a waste of money and a bloody silly idea from start to finish. You signal you can be deflected from a course of action by backing down, you may as well shitcan NATO right now.

 

We arent making it less dangerous with this attitude of appeasement. We are making it more dangerous. These are people who stand up tank armies in response to battalions, and we think that we can find a course of action that doesnt upset them?

Edited July 15, 2016 by Stuart Galbraith

[mattblack]

Since Turkey is in NATO, Azov is no real barrier. NATO is already busy arming, training and providing logistical and other support for all stripes of Islamic extremists. A few neo Nazis is an improvement in many ways.

 

Years ago when I was more active here,I thought your posts were generally intelligent.

[BansheeOne]

And the thing is that Germany has recently become one of the loudest voices against NATO expansion. They present arguments which, if they were applied to them in the 1950s, would make their own accession to NATO impossible.

 

What I'm referring to is 2008 NATO summit, where both Berlin and Paris blocked MAP for Georgia and Ukraine.

 

West Germany also had limited sovereignity, all of its active armed forces assigned to NATO command in peacetime already, and little say in what allied forces were doing on its territory. I'm not sure that's something prospective members would aspire to to create comparable conditions for their accession.

[swerve]

We are now operating at a deficit relatively, if not in absolute terms economically, in terms of political will.

 

Economically, NATO is superior to Russia now by a bigger margin than it ever was to the USSR & its client states.

[Stuart Galbraith]

 

And the thing is that Germany has recently become one of the loudest voices against NATO expansion. They present arguments which, if they were applied to them in the 1950s, would make their own accession to NATO impossible.

 

What I'm referring to is 2008 NATO summit, where both Berlin and Paris blocked MAP for Georgia and Ukraine.

 

West Germany also had limited sovereignity, all of its active armed forces assigned to NATO command in peacetime already, and little say in what allied forces were doing on its territory. I'm not sure that's something prospective members would aspire to to create comparable conditions for their accession.

 

 

if it stopped territorial encroachment, I think the Ukrainians (and the Georgians for that matter) would be willing to sign up for damn near anything.

 

Basically the Georgians bust a gut to help NATO and they got nothing in return. We just signalled we wouldnt do anything to stop their invasion other than wring hands. Its hardly sending a positive message to NATO partnership members, let alone anyone else really.

 

 

I have to add, Ive no wish to upset Russia. But I think we have to face up to the fact that Russia is going to be upset by whatever we do. Anything that strengthens European security they are going to regard as a potential threat. We have to face up to that, and react accordingly.

[glenn239]

Stuart And yes, im aware how insane what im suggesting is.

 

 

Fixed it for you.

 

 

But It strikes me as absurd in the extreme to say it was OK to sign up West Germany because it was threatened by a 3 day tank offensive to the Rhine, and Ukraine (which equally has territories occupied) is threatened by a very much slower form of annexation.

 

 

The west was able to safely incorporate West Germany into NATO because they had a wartime agreement with Stalin on the division of Germany post war - 'West Germany' was the combination of the three zones the Russians had agreed to give away to Britain, the US and France. Similarly, the west is unable to safely protect Ukraine because there is no agreement with Russia on the matter. What you are arguing would be like expanding NATO into East Germany in 1958.

[glenn239]

mattblack Years ago when I was more active here,I thought your posts were generally intelligent.

 

 

What Simon is saying is that the expansion of NATO is undermining the democratic character of NATO.

[Josh]

 

We are now operating at a deficit relatively, if not in absolute terms economically, in terms of political will.

 

Economically, NATO is superior to Russia now by a bigger margin than it ever was to the USSR & its client states.

 

Yes, poor phrasing. I was drunk. Clearly the US drawfs Russia and I bet if I looked it up, German, France or the UK probably have a similar GDP. Its the political will part I question. Russia seems perfectly unified whenever it makes a move; despite economic hardship Putin is probably still more popular than Obama. NATO seems to need to have a meeting to decide where a battalion should get placed and who should provide it.

[swerve]

Yes, that's the problem. Inability to decide to do anything.

[Josh]

Basically the Georgians bust a gut to help NATO and they got nothing in return. We just signalled we wouldnt do anything to stop their invasion other than wring hands. Its hardly sending a positive message to NATO partnership members, let alone anyone else really.

 

 

 

This is what I'm talking about - if we lack the political will to truly support these countries, and I'd posit that we do, then we shouldn't pretend to get involved with them. I'm very confident of NATO deploying balls out if Poland was invaded. I'm less confident of the result in the Baltics. And no one is going to spend any money or blood saving the Ukraine. And why should they?

[glenn239]

Josh Absorbing Georgia or Ukraine, or even the Baltic republics, unnecessarily moves NATOs border up against Russia's to no effective gain

 

 

The principle is that no defensive alliance should incorporate members if these cannot be defended by defensive conventional means, or if their inclusion will cause more instability than it resolves.

[Stuart Galbraith]

 

mattblack Years ago when I was more active here,I thought your posts were generally intelligent.

 

 

What Simon is saying is that the expansion of NATO is undermining the democratic character of NATO.

 

No, once again, NATO is not expanding. That is mission fail right on the first word. NATO is taking on additional responsibilities as asked for by its partner nations. This is effect no different from what it did at at the start, and the USSR got itself in a strop over that entirely sensible action as well.

 

Basically we are rewriting our perception of history to suit current events. isnt that what we accuse the Kremlin of doing?

 

Inclusion of West Germany was not safe, because the wartime division of Germany was, IIRC, pending election of a new Government. And as the Soviets would not let that be anything other than a Communist one, and perceived our introduction of the Deutchmark as a safeguard against that happening, they setup their own state. And one has to add, that was a secondary choice. They would happily have burned what later became the DDR down to the ground and stripped it of machinery if they could have got away with it.

 

So no, West Germany joining NATO was no safe. In fact quite the opposite. Was it right? Yes. And that does not mean it was without risk, or an easy sell to other European nations. But back then other considerations, like deterring aggression, trumped national sentiment. Were it still so.

http://www.historylearningsite.co.uk/modern-world-history-1918-to-1980/the-cold-war/the-warsaw-pact/

 

Actually there IS an agreement on the West protecting Ukraine. Remember the budapest memorandum? True it was vauge in verbalese, but it does demonstrate an intent to guarantee Ukraines Borders. Doesnt actually declare we shouldnt do it by letting them join NATO does it?

[swerve]

 

Basically the Georgians bust a gut to help NATO and they got nothing in return. We just signalled we wouldnt do anything to stop their invasion other than wring hands. Its hardly sending a positive message to NATO partnership members, let alone anyone else really.

 

 

 

This is what I'm talking about - if we lack the political will to truly support these countries, and I'd posit that we do, then we shouldn't pretend to get involved with them. I'm very confident of NATO deploying balls out if Poland was invaded. I'm less confident of the result in the Baltics. And no one is going to spend any money or blood saving the Ukraine. And why should they?

 

Well, the USA & UK signed an agreement "respecting" Ukraine's territorial integrity with strong hints of help if someone else violated Ukraine's borders or threatened to, in exchange for Ukraine destroying its nuclear arsenal. The Ukrainians kept their side of the bargain. Why shouldn't we?

Edited July 15, 2016 by swerve

[glenn239]

Josh We have no treaty with the Ukraine. I'm willing to throw them under the bus.

 

 

We already threw Ukraine under the bus in 2014 when Kerry encouraged them to take a stand against Putin’s stooge and then we did nothing as Putin annexed Crimea. So that’s all water under the bridge, if by ‘water’ we mean ‘Ukraine’ and ‘bridge’ we mean bus.

 

Despite rational thought the Baltic states are part of NATO and NATO needs to be ready to locally reinforce and deter any moves against those nations, though the level of force used against Russia should be broadly proportional.

 

 

Yes, but we shouldn’t advertise that, or even talk about it. Just have the capability and leave it at that; those living in glass houses should not threaten wars to blow up the glass houses.

 

Don't feed a bully.

 

 

I remember on the school bus once how the kids encouraged a kid to stand up to a big bully - and he did. They got off the bus and the bully proceeded to beat the living shit out of him while everyone, (including me) watched and did nothing. There's a cautionary tale in there somewhere, I should think.

[Stuart Galbraith]

 

Josh Absorbing Georgia or Ukraine, or even the Baltic republics, unnecessarily moves NATOs border up against Russia's to no effective gain

 

 

The principle is that no defensive alliance should incorporate members if these cannot be defended by defensive conventional means, or if their inclusion will cause more instability than it resolves.

 

Rubbish. West Germany could not be defended by conventional means either. For the vast majority of the Cold War, West Germany was non defendable other than with nuclear weapons. And THAT is the central reason why both sides worked like bastards to stop it going hot, because they knew full well it meant Armageddon for all.

 

When you understand that those vast armies were little more than a tripwire to start the nuclear exchange underway is when it all starts to make sense. And fortunately both sides understood that perfectly at the time, even if they didnt choose to declare it so.

 

If stability was the delineator of responsiblity, we would have thrown West Berlin under the bus, and told West Germany to foxtrot oscar. We didnt. So one has to ask, if it was good for the immediate postwar period, why not now? And the answer is 'because Russia isnt communist'. Well fair one, but I dont think the most charitable Russophile would describe it as a stable democracy either, and in that lies much of the problem we have had with Russia for the past 100 years.

[Stuart Galbraith]

 

 

Basically the Georgians bust a gut to help NATO and they got nothing in return. We just signalled we wouldnt do anything to stop their invasion other than wring hands. Its hardly sending a positive message to NATO partnership members, let alone anyone else really.

 

 

 

This is what I'm talking about - if we lack the political will to truly support these countries, and I'd posit that we do, then we shouldn't pretend to get involved with them. I'm very confident of NATO deploying balls out if Poland was invaded. I'm less confident of the result in the Baltics. And no one is going to spend any money or blood saving the Ukraine. And why should they?

 

Well, the USA & UK signed an agreement guaranteeing Ukraine's territorial integrity, in exchange for Ukraine destroying its nuclear arsenal. The Ukrainians kept their side of the bargain. Why shouldn't we?

 

Exactly.