FLEA

I do stand slightly corrected. I don't think Russia has ever applied for the EU (NATO yes) Why would Russia apply for the EU though? It would be detrimental to their sovereignty and their economy.

Bro they tried all of that. The west didn't trust them and kindly removed Russia's hand from their shoulder. The west wasn't ready to trust Russia post WW2, and Russia became skeptical of why the west continued to hide cooperation if they were really intent on peace.

To give some more context, Ukraine's ascension would have allowed the US to proposition a force on the Russian border very similar to the force Russia just prepositioned on the Ukraine border. That's what Russia was terrified of.

But that's not how Putin, or anyone in Russian governance sees it. And they continue to see NATO aggressively because NATO refuses to accept olive branches. It doesn't matter that you know NATO is a defensive organization. Russia doesn't and they aren't privy to the insider baseball that would make them think that way.

So why should NATO expansion go forward? Putin is just supposed to be happy that an alliance created to deliberately overthrow his country is allowed to continue getting stronger while he has to continue to sign arms treaties and contain his foreign policy sphere?

Noone forced them to join but every single NATO nation had to agree and allow it, and NATO is very selective. Russia applied for NATO and was told no. Again I think there is momentum to derationalize man who is acting very rationally and by doing that you risk him being able to outmaneuver us in thought. This isn't a tantrum. Putin wants something. What is it?

Excellent analysis. Exactly what I was worried about and why I didn't want to get overly optimistic.

I understand there was a belief in Blitzkrieg but I think we need patience to see where Russia is going and how this unfolds. We were not even close to taking cities every 2 days in Iraq/Syria. Mosul took months as we went house by house. I'm not saying I'm not happy Russia is facing difficulty. But better to remain cautiously optimistic and see what unfurls. On another note, turns out the fighter deal with Poland fell through because Ukraine was under the false impression they would be allowed to fly and operate the fighters out of Poland. That was clearly not the case.

Well that died..... https://www.politico.com/news/2022/02/28/ukrainian-pilots-arrive-in-poland-to-pick-up-donated-fighter-jets-00012560

Its an interesting idea and it has merit. Given Putin's extensive use of Wagner Group I think it would be hard for him to criticize such a move.

Speaking of countries trying to reset the world order I think it would be a mistake to try and remove Russia's seat from the security council. I think doing so would isolate China and create a sentiment that the UN is an organization that doesn't work anymore so there is no sense in trying to try diplomatic means anymore. The only way I see it working is if we rewrote the rules to reduce the amount of power given to all permanent seats and I don't think any of the other seats want that.

So I see what you're getting at now but I think that is sort of already happening albeit other avenues. About 50 fighter aircraft were just transferred to Ukraine from former soviet states, and they are attempting to source more. Question is, would it be beneficial to transfer F-16s and then say get Erik Prince to hire some former Weapon School grads to go over there as PMCs and fly them under Ukraines payroll?

Yeah, ive been thinking about this but then I realized Russia was the one that suffered 8.5 million casualties in WW2 and sent their forces into battle without even having weapons. We see this as losing but they may not be looking at it the same way. I'm also not convinced they are doing as poorly as the media makes them out. I'm certain there are some difficulties but I also know 1.) The media has an interest in denigrating Russian capability, 2.) Ukraine, where much of the reports are coming from, has an interest in denigrating Russian capability. 3.) Our own US IC is incredibly susceptive to confirmation bias as was illustrated by the IC failures that did not predict the rise of ISIS following the withdraw and the subsequent reports that the fight against ISIS was going well. (Pre-Trump, IC got really into a "say what makes the boss happy" mentality and started reporting overly optimistic stats to the WH in what is now seen as a huge community failure.)

I would say if Putin does go nuclear we are full in. There is so much in these crises responses that is uncontrollable spin up and once certain actions occur there's no control in it anymore. That said, he doesn't need to. North Korea is an excellent example of how artillery can be as effective a deterrent as nukes. Honestly, he's playing his hand smart. He's sticking to the rules "just enough" to stay within international norms, only skirting outside for limited instances. To goingKinetic's point, I think if we entered, even to enforce a no fly zone, I don't think Putin would go nuclear immediately. I think Belarus would enter full in and Putin would strike targets in Western Europe. At that point things accelerate quite quickly and that's when it gets out of control. Russia will get allies not because they are particularly pro Russia but because they are anti Western Europe and the US and they would see another WW as a chance to reset the victory conditions from the last one. China is a good example of a player that may think that way.

What? I'm not going to read your post anymore either.

There is no strategy and that is a major problem for the US right now. We are continuing to try and enforce the NPT as the soul means of maintaining our nuclear power margin. However, the NPT becomes exponentially more difficult to enforce over time as the technology becomes wider available, and smaller states are recognizing that they need an asymmetric arm to prevent bullying by larger states. The NPT after WW2 is exactly what the international taboo on political assassination after the 30 years war was in the 17th century. It was an attempt by larger states that could afford large standing armies/arsenals, to enforce behavior on smaller states that would prevent them from asymmetrically circumventing those arsenals. The break down in the North Korea talks was that North Korea knows it cannot conventionally defeat South Korea (even without US Aid) in a war anymore. Therefore they invested all of their eggs into asymmetric options (specifically, a very robust SOF capability and nuclear arms). North Korea very strongly believes if an armistice is signed the US will end the UN mission and start retrograding in South Korea. They then believe South Korea will attempt unification and North Korea is now stripped of the means to deter that. The US internally debated at the academic level the possibility of allowing North Korea limited access to nuclear weapons but it became a red line for Pompeo because it would erode credibility to the NPT. It was basically a license for other small rogue states to go develop nukes as well. He was right, but so were his critics. Until the US accepts the fact that the NPT world order is temporary and begins developing strategies for a post nuclear armed world, we are going to struggle adapting to the changing security environment.

Bro maybe go back and check your reading comprehension. Literally said exactly the opposite.

Not an isolationist. But to be clear, presuming you're an officer, you were taught the DIME Instruments of Power model somewhere in your commissioning or PME courses. You are openly rejecting the viability of three of pillars within that model and broadcasting support for solely military options to solve world problems. In essence, you are basically saying the US should use only force to enforce its moral/ideals/culture onto other nation states. Who sounds like the bully now?

Was one of the things being talked about behind closed doors in the North Korea talks in 2019. We as a country need to recognize and adapt that the strategy of nuclear counter-proliferations was never meant to be permanent. Its an 80 year old technology and the vast majority of the research needed to construct a nuclear arm is now open source and taught in college physics.

And did you calculate for how many innocents would be killed if the war massively scales to a global level?

Peal Harbor is often considered a war crime because Japan had not gone through a 5 point declaration of war before initiating hostilities. Putin very clearly announced prior to his invasion his intention to intervene militarily in the Ukraine. You area comparing apples and oranges.

Again man, war is messy. Tragic, yes. Sad, absolutely. But do I think civilians are being deliberately targeted? I don't think there is a lot of evidence to support that. Seems more likely these people area in the wrong place at the wrong time. This may come as a surprise to you, but you can legally kill civilians in war and the US has done it extensively in the last 20 years. So long as there is a target of military value and that value is proportional to the civilian casualties inflicted, you can lawfully pursue a strike against that target knowing it will kill civilians as well.

Actually it does make you a criminal combatant. Thats exactly what the Geneva conventions say about people who are combatants that aren't apart of a belligerent uniformed force.

You're willing to place that bet though? Your ready to deal with the consequences of being wrong? You don't think he would push the button but lots of people certainly think he is. What brings you so much confidence that others don't have? The dude just dropped a vacuum bomb in the middle of a major population center. He is already not far from using nuclear weapons. And the more you pit him in a corner the less he has to lose. Also realize, our own media has a shade of bias in it regarding innocent casualties. Certainly many are tragic like the children, but also remember Ukraine MPs are in the squares handing rifles out to anyone who will take them. That taints things quite a bit. So far most of the targets causing high civilian deaths have also had military value (tv towers, industrial centers, government offices). Russia has also done this without the modern advances in targeting pods, ISR and PGMs the US has developed. Russia has also sent broadcast for safe passage for civilians out of cities and warning civilians that remain will be declared combatants. Why am I mentioning that? Because that is exactly what we did in Mosul, Tabqa, and Raqqa. We declared every male in those cities combatants regardless of their intentions for remaining. So I think we need to recognize there is more similarity in these approaches than there are differences. I'm not an apologist for Russia. I still think what they're doing is horrible, and I by no means support it. But I don't think going in with so much force that we push a side to miscalculation is a good way to pursue this.

This thought process (the one you are describing of other Americans) is endemic of our habit of framing everything under a banner moral interventionalism. Everyone is looking for "who is the good guy" and "who is the bad guy" and very few people fail to see outside the black and white that in war 99% of people are grey. Know thy enemy is a basic intellectual principal of war but so many people would rather resort to the academically lazy solution of just presuming the enemy is irrational. How does a person who lacks ration and reason get and maintain power of an enormous nuclear nation state? Just doesn't make sense....