The War in Europe

Holy Crap! And they coated some of the important parts with GOLD!! Gosh, and the people those NASA people bought their stuff from could have used that money to feed their kids, and educate and clothe and medicate their kids, and...Edited by Tanypteryx, : No reason given.

There doesn't seem much of substance to comment on here - I'm not concerned with your grammatical criticism, but as we're into it, your post was more of a metaphor. But example, analogy, metaphor - it doesn't matter, NATO must react to a physical incursion on a member's territory. If it doesn't the West collapses, so it will. It is not in anyway like the Maginot line - grammar included. If your point is the obvious truism that nothing is perfect, well sure, but let's take that as a given eh? It's probably best to stick to what you think rather than what you think I think, but I'm not claiming that NATO is invincible; you have just introduced that concept.My position is that NATO would crush Russia in a conventional war (and a nuclear one for that matter but then no-one wins). Russia knows this so it will not set foot in any NATO country. It would be suicide, so it's not going to happen. NATO is stronger now than it was a month ago, Germany has done a total about face and is now investing heavily in defence and cutting trade, Finland and Sweden now have local support for full NATO membership.But that is all a by-the-by, the existing NATO members now know beyond all doubt that they must defend their borders. And Putin now knows this.Hell one small nation sitting outside NATO is giving Putin a bloody nose and defying his best efforts, do you think he now believes he could have any chance at all up against NATO with modern weaponry? What do you want me to do, give you two articles saying the opposite? I'm not ignoring your arguments, I'm just not impressed by them because the NATO promise is a real red line, one boot over the border and NATO must act, if it doesn't it's lost, that is now fully understood. Stop it. I'm not ignoring your 'arguments', I'm saying that I think they're spurious.

My argument isn't that European attitudes will fluctuate between wanting and rejecting NATO. My argument is that they'll fluctuate between strong support (during periods of panic, like now) and weak support (during periods of complacency, which is most of the time). One of the non-negotiable Russian demands in negotiations with Ukraine is that Ukraine pledge never to join NATO. A NATO weakened by years of complacency. Germany's recent pledge to place greater emphasis on its own defense and of funding NATO provides no immediate remedy for past sins and will take years to have an impact.And the view of some of an invincible NATO does not stand up to the scrutiny of those with more informed viewpoints and greater immediacy, such as Estonian Prime Minister Kaja Kallas who's editorial appears in today's NYT (editorial Opinion | Estonia’s Prime Minister: Russia’s Putin Cannot Think He’s Won This War - The New York Times). She describes how much NATO must improve and strengthen in order to stand up to the Russian menace:

quote:

---

We at NATO have a solid basis to work from. Members are committed to the defense of the whole of NATO territory, and in recent years the alliance has taken some bold, necessary steps. Among them was the establishment in 2016 of an enhanced forward presence of allied troops — multinational, combat-ready battle groups — in Poland, Lithuania, Latvia and Estonia. On Wednesday the alliance announced that it will likely double the number of battle groups on its eastern flank.

​

But we need to go further. The forward presence needs to become forward defense, of land, air and sea. That would mean more combat-ready allied troops stationed permanently in the Baltic States, supported by long-range artillery, air defense and other enabling capabilities. It would mean more NATO fighters in our skies ready to switch from peacetime air policing to wartime air defense. And it would mean more NATO ships patrolling the Baltic Sea.

---

She also fears the inevitable complacency that will follow this crisis:

quote:

---

None of this will be easy or cost-free. And the time will surely come when we hear calls for the easing of sanctions. But we — NATO, the European Union and individual countries — must be patient and remain firm. There will be no business as usual with Mr. Putin’s Russia. In fact, there can be no business at all.

---

She's also aware of Putin's efforts to destabilize neighboring countries:

quote:

---

Moscow may think that forcing millions of Ukrainians to leave and seek shelter across Europe will destabilize our societies. This is also part of Mr. Putin’s war aims, and one of the tools of his hybrid warfare. We must show him he’s wrong.

---

No one knows for sure what will happen, but one of the serious possibilities is that Putin escalates to the point of obliterating Ukrainian population centers. Another editorial in the NYT, Opinion | How Will the Ukraine War End? - The New York Times, outlines a number of scenarios, one of them titled "Putin takes Ukraine — and doesn’t stop". A few excerpts:

quote:

---

Despite Russia’s initial failures, many commentators believe it is only a matter of time before Putin unleashes the full might of his military on Ukraine’s cities and deposes its government. And what might he do then?

​

“The optimistic part is he dies soon after,” Masha Gessen, who covers Russia for The New Yorker, told Ezra Klein on a recent episode of his podcast. “Because if he doesn’t, it happens again and again and again,” Gessen said, adding, “Moldova, Ukraine, Georgia, the Baltics, Poland — they’re all on notice.”

---

Gee, he lists the exact same countries I've been listing, including NATO member Poland.--PercyEdited by Percy, : Fix quoting.

This may be a part of an agreement … written on paper … for a while. Brussels will have to determine whether this is politically acceptable. Weak? Does NATO look weak to you? Is there any doubt that NATO could take on Russia and win decisively? The only one looking weak on the world stage right now is Russia. And that is because they have just shown themselves to be far weaker and incompetent than their reputation had portrayed. Except the incompetent part. The Ruskie military has always been incompetent going back to the Czars. They can only win battles by throwing bodies at them. Percy, I think you’re smoking more than I. Her quote says quite the opposite of your comment. While calls to ease sanctions will inevitably come she is quite resolute in declaring there can be no accommodation with Putin.

quote:

---

There will be no business as usual with Mr. Putin’s Russia. In fact, there can be no business at all.

---

That is not fear of complacency. This comes from the leader of one of the frontline states. It is an acknowledgement that they’re in this for the long term. Decades. Longer.I still don’t think you appreciate the shock Europe is going through. Of course she is. She’s one of those neighboring countries. She’s probably aware of other more sinister attacks on her country and on NATO by Putin’s minions. She also says they resolve to stand up to these attempts. This is not fear of Putin or a fear of Russia or of the necessity to plan for war, Percy. This is resolve. I fail to see how you can interpret these statements otherwise. You mean like he’s been doing all this past month? This is not new, Percy. It is happening on the ground today. Putin’s torture and rape of Ukraine is expected to continue until … Emotional hype. The reality on the ground is looking much different.

I chose not to repeat myself, but my original point from Message 439 stands, that your claims about NATO are analogous to French claims about the Maginot Line. Your problem isn't grammar but definitions. I don't care about your grammar. Be as ungrammatical as you like as long as you're intelligible. But you're inventing your own definitions. Examples, analogies and metaphors are not parts of grammar. The type of explanation I used is called an analogy, not an example, and a metaphor is a type of analogy. I think if you look into it a little bit you'll agree that I was drawing an analogy, not a metaphor or an example. The analogy was between your attitude of NATO's defensive effectiveness for Europe now and French attitudes of the Maginot Line's defensive effectiveness for France before WWII. This overstates the case. The west wouldn't collapse if NATO lost, say, Estonia (with Putin likely using at least in part a claim of protecting its 25% Russian minority).But most would agree that no NATO country faces serious threat from Russia today, but Putin is playing a long game, as witnessed by what's happened in Georgia, Chechnya, the Crimea and the Donetsk region of Ukraine over the past decade. There's no timetable. Putin will make his moves when he thinks they have a chance of success.NATO's strength has waxed and waned since the demise of the Soviet Union. At first it seemed to be morphing gradually into a representative democracy under Boris Yeltsin, but Putin has been gradually turning Russia back into the evil empire. While NATO resolve has suddenly become strong, if history is any guide then that won't last. As I said to you in Message 447, Trump could get elected again, and he's not a strong supporter of NATO, almost a negative supporter, in fact. And Europe's own support for NATO goes through periods of complacency. Putin will continue his expansionism, after Ukraine likely taking Moldova, and he'll maintain his pressure through thick and thin, undermining political resolve, and when he feels the time is right he'll strike. He does seem to have been caught unawares by how greatly his military readiness has declined, but he's a quick study and is unlikely to repeat the mistake of filling his top military posts with yes men. My point is that your confidence in NATO may be misplaced. And I'll repeat again that analogy isn't grammar. I said that you're holding up NATO like it was some kind of shield of invincibility, and you replied, "It is." The threat is already being felt today, as evidenced by those articles I provided. I'm not saying your opinion of what could happen is wrong. Where you're wrong is in stating your opinions as absolutes, as if they were the only possible things that could happen. It is no surprise that during a period of threat that support for NATO has increased. But eventually Ukraine will be in the rear view mirror and things will calm down. The resolve to keep Russia isolated and not buy their fossil fuels or grain will diminish, as will the perception of Russia as a military threat. Countries will make choices about where best to allocate their budgets, to NATO or other things. Why send money to NATO when Russia hasn't engaged in saber rattling for a while? Will the people saying, "Putin did it before, he could do it again, we have to keep NATO strong," be listened to?The public that elects our politicians has a short memory. To be reminded of this you need only look at how quickly everyone's discarding their masks here in the states even as BA.2 ramps up, and even though we have the example of Europe experiencing BA.2 spikes before us. Human beings never permanently learn any lesson. It's human nature. Obviously I don't think Putin will engage NATO militarily in any direct way, because the scenario I keep describing is nothing like that. I believe Putin will depend upon eventual complacency to create exploitable political and military weaknesses. It's impossible to predict how things will play out, but the countries next at risk are Moldova, the Baltic states, and Poland. That's an odd thing to say. The opposite? You mean that Putin's propaganda efforts are having no impact? I can see some believing they're having less of an impact than others do, but no impact? I appreciate that you're not ignoring my arguments, but when someone responds to something that's said, and the response doesn't address it but just says the same thing again, it comes across as ignoring them. You're arguing against a scenario I'm not pushing. I don't believe Putin will frontally attack NATO. Every scenario I've described has talked about undermining NATO resolve and preparedness. You even quoted me saying it, then ignored it and responded as if I'd argued that Putin would attack a NATO member. Stop suggesting that it's inadvisable to state your opinions in absolutist terms? No. Treating someone's arguments dismissively or casting derogatory comments at them instead of addressing them are ways one ignores them.--Percy

You do understand that if you say something, others don't have to agree with you don't you? Great. we're all square. Yes and I pointed out that your example/analogy/metaphor was erroneous and irrelevant because the Maginot line was a bit of physical infrastructure that the enemy just walked around whilst NATO is a political promise to defend any member. Of course it doesn't - Russia attacking a NATO member before, now or in the future would be suicide. That's the entire point of NATO. Cobblers, he could never, ever make a move on a NATO country. Pure fantasy and now proven reality. Well thanks for the armchair analysis. I've read many forms of this stuff - it's all opinion. I have a different one. Jeeze, not that again... Then we're all dead and both our points are moot. Maybe we can both hope that I'm right and you're wrong? Come on Percy, articles are not evidence, they're opinions. Look, we're both talking about what we think will happen - neither of us can see the future. But if I'm wrong, neither of us will care much.

Why do you think Brussels would have any say in a treaty between Ukraine and Russia? Yeah, pretty much. They're afraid of intervening on behalf of Ukraine for fear that Putin will escalate. NATO is militarily superior, but Russia is the largest country in the world by almost a factor of 2. It's proven able to absorb huge invasions, so I don't share your confidence about "win decisively." The US is the most powerful country in the world, yet we lost in Vietnam and Afghanistan, and I have no idea how to define what happened in Iraq, but it sure doesn't feel like winning. Agreed. Putin has let his military readiness decline, and in my previous message to Tangle I speculated that he'd put too many yes men and cronies in senior military positions. But that's fixable. Russia is a huge country of enormous resources. There may be a bit of a misunderstanding because I see that I expressed myself in a way open to an interpretation I didn't intend. I should have said she fears the tendency toward complacency that occurs after any crisis. No, taken not in isolation but together with the rest of the paragraph it pretty much is. Not so great a shock that NATO forces are headed into Ukraine. I only mentioned this because it seemed to me that you didn't think Putin's destabilizing efforts were a significant issue. If I was wrong about that I apologize. I didn't say she feared Putin. I said she feared complacency. I was only trying to say something that you seem to agree with, that she's aware of the multifaceted threat that Putin represents. I wasn't implying that she was cowering or anything like that. No, not like he's been doing all this past month. More. Obliteration. I was echoing something from an opinion article in the NYT, How Will the Ukraine War End?:

quote:

---

Despite Russia’s initial failures, many commentators believe it is only a matter of time before Putin unleashes the full might of his military on Ukraine’s cities and deposes its government.

---

Many of us here grew up in the shadow of WWII, so I don't understand the inclination of so many to minimize the seriousness of the Russian threat in the same way as Hitler.--Percy

You said there wasn't much to comment on, so I explained why that was the case, that the lack of content was because I chose not to repeat myself but that I did stand by my original point, and since you might not recall the original point I repeated it. I don't understand why that would lead you to believe I think others have to agree with me. I think you don't know what an analogy is. There's not an analogy in the world where the two items being analogized are identical. There are always differences. That's why they're analogies and not identities. You're picking on differences between NATO and the Maginot Line that are irrelevant to the point being made.Making my point another way, in my view you have an inflated idea of NATO's ability to maintain political unity and military preparedness in the face of Russian persistence, determination, propaganda and political machinations. This is extreme exaggeration. It would not be suicide for Russia to attack a NATO member. Haven't heard "cobblers" before. I'll have to remember that one.I don't understand your recent predilection for exaggeration and expressing things in absolute terms. Are you using it as a form of emphasis? Are you just trying to indicate how strongly you believe something? But you have no rebuttal or even comment. You're ignoring the actual argument. "Hey, that's just an opinion, moving on." I didn't say that again. You cut-n-pasted incorrectly. That was from an earlier message. You must not use "Peek Mode" when you cut-n-paste from an old message, and when you don't use it then you lose all the quoting, all you get is the text. It is not anywhere near so clearcut as this. Few things are, and certainly not world politics and military conflicts. Nobody's right or wrong. I'm arguing that Russia is a much more tangible threat to the remaining independent European countries on and near its borders, including those in NATO. My position isn't that these threats *are* what's going to happen. My argument is that they are threats to be taken seriously. Naturally I also believe that if these threats aren't taken seriously then they become more likely to happen. They're informed opinions that deserve to be discussed, not dismissed as you prefer to do. Only you're talking about what you think will happen. I believe the situation is far too complex with far too many variables to have any firm opinions about what will happen. I'm talking about the threat of what could happen.--Percy

Yes, I'm aware what you think. I think you're wrong. It would be WW111 It's because the NATO promise is black and white, binary. One boot on NATO territory triggers a response. It is just an opinion. My opinion is that Putin has screwed up and lost. He can't win this war. All your speculation about future expansionism depends on a belief that Putin will survive this and get stronger. But quite plainly he and Russia is now weaker than than this time a month ago and getting weaker by the day. The Russian economy has been trashed, Russia can't sustain itself, let alone another incursion. I know what your point is. I know what you're arguing, but it's based on an assumption that Putin will survive and win in Ukraine. I don't think he will, he may take it but he won't keep it and even if he does, he'll have another cold war which will eventually strangle him and Russia. Tens of thousands of new troops are now being sent to the NATO countries in the East.

Russia has just shown to the world, including its own Czar, that the Russian military is crap. Russia cannot take on NATO because they do not have the military means to do so. The Imperial Russian Army, considering its present condition, would be easily swept from Poland as it entered. It’s even ludicrous to consider.The facts we are seeing on the ground tell a very bad picture for the Russian. Their military performance is far below expectations and their economy is fragile and is beginning to fail. They cannot sustain a war against a comic in Kiev let alone against the 28 nation-sized gorilla that surrounds it. You think Zelenskyy is negotiating in a vacuum? Wake up, Percy. This is the modern age. Zelenskyy’s position is highly dependent on what support he gets from NATO. If NATO advises for/against negotiating a ban on Ukraine entry to NATO then there is a damn good reason and it would be is to his advantage that Zelenskyy negotiate that way. These situations are not separate acts. And Russia is in no condition to dictate terms. Their invasion failed and their occupation, though brutal and bloody, is failing as well. You do know that Russia is a nuclear power? It has nukes. Military escalation is one thing. Nuke escalation is another. NATO has no fear of the Russian military. They fear his nukes. That is not weakness, Percy. That is prudence. What are you talking about? No one is contemplating invading Russia. That’s insane. What we are talking about is your fear that Russia will invade NATO. That is also insane. Tzar Vladimir the Condemned has seen how incompetent his military is.The point is that if Russia did move on NATO the Russian forces would be brushed aside easily. NATO would win decisively without having to march all the way to Moscow. Let the Russian absorb all the invasion they want. NATO can decisively defeat Russia without much of an invasion. We’re talking military power not political longevity. Vietnam and Afghanistan were political, not military, defeats.
You are deliberately confusing the two for what reason? Do you really think NATO can’t punch Putin hard in the nose and then still make it home in time for lunch? NATO does not have to occupy Russia to snip its balls off and leave it neutered. Something the Russians are already doing to themselves with this incompetent invasion crap. Catherine, Peter, Stalin, Putin all had the same problem with their armies. Their autocracy leads to incompetent command structures. That is Russia historically. That is not going to change under Putin at this late date. Do you really think touching off a nuclear war would have helped? Prudence, Percy, prudence.Europe’s shock has already become evident in galvanizing action to supply Ukraine and fortify the eastern border. Long term actions will include more military spending aimed specifically at Russia. There will be no complacency until NATO has an opportunity to assess Putin’s replacement. They used to be, before Ukraine. Now we see it was all bluster, smoke, mirrors and miss-direction. No one believes that Russian crap any more. And when it came to the actual nut cutting NATO stood as one. Putin’s efforts to confuse and sideline NATO failed just like his invasion. Such efforts by Putin in the future will be seen for what they are and ignored.

quote:

---

Despite Russia’s initial failures, many commentators believe it is only a matter of time before Putin unleashes the full might of his military on Ukraine’s cities and deposes its government.

---

“the full might of his military” has already blown its wad. It is “systemically” incompetent. The more Putin fights the more he will lose. The only power he has left is nuclear and other weapons of mass destruction. This makes no sense. Who is minimizing the Russian threat? What in this present scenario applies to Hitler?Edited by AZPaul3, : No reason given.

Edited by AZPaul3, : No reason given.

Edited by AZPaul3, : No reason given.

Perhaps we can agree that the west should hope for the best but be prepared for the worst? That's not even remotely similar to "suicide for Russia" because it means dire consequences for all concerned.And while WWIII must be one of the scenarios considered, it doesn't seem one of the more likely given Putin's "one country at a time" approach. Consider a hypothetical. Say Russia had invaded Estonia instead of Ukraine. Estonia is less than one tenth the size of Ukraine. It would fall in days. What are you imagining about NATO's response that would lead to a world war or some kind of armageddon?Or consider another hypothetical. Russia undermines Estonian politics and causes a change in leadership that is friendly to Russia (a la Belarus) and Estonia withdraws from NATO and becomes a Russian puppet state. But wouldn't it likely be a measured and proportionate response? Sure, if Putin sends bombers, tanks, missiles and troops into and over Warsaw and Berlin and Prague and so forth, we've got WWIII. But what if he just takes Estonia in order to rescue Estonia's endangered 25% Russian minority that is being subjected to Nazi tortures - far more than 0% of the world buys such propaganda. Maybe we have different views of what we're doing in this thread. Maybe you think this is a "state your opinion, tell the other guy he's wrong, and we're done here" kind of thread. I was thinking of it as a discussion thread where the stating of opinions is the starting point, followed by discussion, critique, bolstering, rebutting, etc. But Putin *can* win this war. I'm not saying he *will* win this war, just that he can. If we don't take that possibility seriously then we might fail to provide Ukraine sufficient aid and assistance.Most reports now now have Ukraine on the ascendant. Will Putin give up and admit defeat, or will he keep plugging along? Consider the political ramifications for Putin at home if he loses. Can Putin lose and remain in power? To remain in power doesn't he have to maintain the invasion, even escalating, for example carpet bombing Ukrainian cities into oblivion (or whatever the modern equivalent is)? It isn't speculation to look at Putin's expansionistic history (Georgia, Chechnya, the Crimea, the Donetsk region, Belarus, and now attempting to take Ukraine) and conclude that he's likely to do it again. I don't believe Putin *will* survive. I believe that Putin surviving is a possibility that must be given serious consideration, else we'll be unprepared if that eventuates. Maybe you're right, but aren't the consequences too dire if we don't prepare for the possibility that you're wrong.This analogy might not work for you, but anyway, a number of years ago Chris Evert walked off the court after winning 6-0, 6-0, and an interviewer asked if she ever felt sorry for her opponent and thought she should give her a mercy game. Evert's response was instant and categorical. No, of course not. Even when the score was 6-0, 5-0, she took very seriously the possibility that her opponent might stage a comeback, and she worked hard to close out that match just as quickly and expeditiously as possible while showing no mercy.We must take equally seriously the possibility that this is not over. Putin has enormous resources at his command, and we mustn't conclude from his recent lack of success that things will continue in the same way. Again, we had better take the possibility that "Putin will survive and win in Ukraine" very seriously, else we make that outcome more likely, and we'll be unprepared if it eventuates. What is actually true is that the 140,000 troops already present in NATO's eastern flanks have been mobilized, and plans are being put in place to bolster those regions but numbers are still being discussed and no additional troops have actually been sent at this time. Permanent stationing of the additional troops is a possibility being considered. See https://www.cnbc.com/...ia-hungary-romania-and-slovakia.html.--Percy

Dire consequences for all does not mean it wouldn't be suicidal does it? If Russia invaded Estonia NATO would be forced to attack Russia. That becomes WW111. Just as has been said several times that if NATO attacked Russians in Ukraine it would be WW111 I have no idea but you're still assuming that Russia has won and his economy is healthy and NATO is still fast asleep. The least likely of all scenarios It's an conclusion based on what membership of NATO promises to its members. You're not getting this at all are you? ANY invading boots on NATO territory triggers an all in response. It will start proportionally and escalate if the boots don't leave.It's similar to MAD. NATO must make Russia believe that NATO will respond hard to any territorial incursion. That's what we're doing here. I'm disagreeing with your analysis and telling you mine. Well of course anything could happen, but few military advisors think that Putin can hold Ukraine even if he takes the country. He thought he would walk into Kiev untouched, welcomed by women throwing flowers at the tanks. He believed his own rhetoric and his entourage where too scared to tell him the truth, that Ukrainians do not want to be part of Russia and will fight to the death to defend it. There are a few outcomes for Putin, none of them involve taking Ukraine long term and moving on to nibble at more bits of Europe. Whatever he does now - even shelling Ukraine to total destruction - doesn't get him to your scenario of Putin on the march again. Short or long term that era is over. Rather we need to make sure he doesn't survive this. ditto above. But of course there'll be a plan b. Ditto above. I heard you the first time. You seem to doubt that this is being taken seriously by NATO. I really don't see it that way."Nato is set to approve big increases in the forces deployed on its eastern flank, its secretary-general Jens Stoltenberg has said.
Mr Stoltenberg was speaking at a news conference on the eve of an emergency summit on Russia's invasion of Ukraine.
He pledged more troops for Hungary, Slovakia, Bulgaria and Romania.
Nato will also agree more support for Ukraine, including greater protection against the use of chemical, biological and nuclear weapons."Ukraine war: Nato to send more troops to eastern Europe - BBC News

Though I have been accused with disconnected and irrational thinking, (largely due to diabetic blood sugar levels) I absorb a great deal of information. My critics prematurely accuse me of accepting the preaching of con men and hucksters.Time will tell how accurate my phobias are regarding the US Dollar...but that's another topic.I am convinced now that the primary reason for Putins land grab into Ukraine is the following:1) Ukraine found evidence of large oil and natural gas reserves within their territory. The former president, Petro Poroshenko, was pro Russian.
2)Zelinski sided more with the West and Putin could not risk losing the warm water port and the additional Natural Gas reserves (and oil).

Sheesh.What warm water port would Russia lose?What gas and or oil would Russia lose?

You're not responding to anything I said. I don't think anyone expects Russia would conduct a frontal attack on Poland. Estonia, sure (if they weren't already busy with Ukraine), but not Poland.What I have said in previous messages is that Putin will attempt to undermine countries he targets through politics, propaganda and dirty tricks like compromising elections and conducting cyberattacks. His preferred approach is to install a friendly regime or intimidate an existing one.He already did this once in Ukraine when Viktor Yanukovych was president back in 2013. Over Putin's objections he planned to sign an agreement that would have moved Ukraine closer to Europe. Putin cut off energy supplies sending Ukraine into a recession, and Yanukovych caved into Putin's demands. But this greatly upset the Ukrainian public, ultimately causing unrest that drove him from power in 2014. It is possible that the Russian military will continue to perform poorly, that aid to Ukraine will prove sufficient, and that sanctions will bite deeply enough to have the desired effect. It is also possible that the Russian military's performance will improve, that aid to Ukraine will provide insufficient, and that sanctions will not bite deeply enough to have the desired effect. You chopped off the part of conversation that set the context. I mentioned the Russian demand that a treaty with Ukraine include a condition that Ukraine pledge never to join NATO. You stated that "Brussels will have to determine whether this is politically acceptable." I'm asking why you think Brussels judgment of its political acceptability would have have any effect. Perhaps what you mean to say is that Brussels would be providing Zelenskyy their own opinions about his options.NATO has been in favor of Ukraine membership, but I don't think that was a major concern for Putin because the Ukrainian public was not in favor. But public sentiment has flipped over the past few years with Russia's moves into the Donbas region of eastern Ukraine, making Ukrainian membership more likely, and that may be why Putin invaded. You're declaring things to be so that aren't. They're possible outcomes, that's all. No, that's weakness. No one is enforcing a no-fly zone or providing fighter jets for fear of provoking Russia into using nuclear weapons. They're letting Russia dictate what kind of assistance and weaponry can be provided to Ukraine.The terms of any conflict are often dictated by whichever side is willing to employ the most drastic measures. In the years leading up to WWII that was Hitler, who didn't shy away from conflict and war, in fact believed that war should be the normal state. In the current crisis it is Putin, who has convinced the west that he wouldn't shy away from using nuclear weapons if sufficiently provoked. And so the western powers meekly try to guess what limits they should enforce upon themselves. I'm responding to what you said, that "NATO could take on Russia and win decisively." What does "win decisively" mean to you? Merely expelling Russian forces from lands they invaded? That doesn't sound very decisive or like much of a win. Winning decisively is what the allies accomplished against Germany and Japan during WWII, with neither country's government surviving (except the Japanese emperor).If all you meant is that NATO could eventually expel Russia from any NATO country it invaded, then sure, probably. I'm not sure what this means, but taking a guess that you think just a little more political resolve to keep up the military efforts would have brought victories...seriously? Appeasement doesn't work. Their shock is evident by restricting themselves to measures they think Russia will tolerate? Then I don't think they're shocked enough yet. Hopefully they'll become sufficiently shocked before Russia starts knocking down their doors. It is human nature to become complacent. There will be plenty of complacency eventually. Okay, so I was right, you don't think they're a significant issue. Whatever the problems of the Russian military, aren't they more than compensated for by sheer superiority in numbers and materiel? Who is minimizing the Russian threat? How about you: "the Russian military is crap...They cannot sustain a war against a comic in Kyiv...It was all bluster, smoke mirrors and misdirection...his military has already blown its wad. It is 'systemically' incompetent."--Percy