At Brussels Signal Gabriel Elefteriu has harsh words for those NATO members advocating direct military intervention in the war between Russia and Ukraine:
The collective flight of reason triggered by Emmanuel Macron’s bombshell suggestion last month about a possible Western military intervention in Ukraine is only gathering more pace. After prominent Dutch, Lithuanian, Estonian, Czech and Polish officials and leaders quickly endorsed the idea, the Finnish and Latvian foreign ministers have also recently joined the push to normalise this utterly irresponsible notion.
Commendably, some countries including the US, UK and Germany have ruled out deploying troops to Ukraine. But even in their ranks there are voices, such as that of former UK defence secretary Ben Wallace, who are on board with it all.
and
In summary, there is no such thing as a “non-combat” deployment in Ukraine and direct engagements with Russian forces are all but guaranteed, with further escalation from there.
The idea that this can be done on some “coalition of the willing”-basis by just some NATO countries acting separately from the Alliance itself, is worse than a bad joke: it betrays a petrifying deficit of understanding and lapse of judgement regarding the political realities around Article 5.
I think the intent of this coalition of the gung-ho is direct U. S. military intervention in that war, i.e. “boots on the ground”. Here’s why any NATO countries joining the fray would end NATO:
All the other allies – including, quite likely, the United States – who declined to join the mad dash into Ukraine, but now would be asked to help, would quite reasonably say, “no, thank you”.
He concludes:
The current narrative being artificially built up around Europe, suggesting that we need to fight Putin in Ukraine, otherwise we’ll have to fight him on NATO territory, only serves to discredit the Alliance. It is also an insult to the intellect of any thinking person.
There is a reason why there is a NATO border that separates those who are in from those who are not: it marks the limit to which an adversary who wishes us harm can stretch its power – yes, even through conquest – before the rules of the game change and the might of the entire alliance comes into play.
By trying to erase these limits and wipe out any distinction between NATO membership and non-membership, Macron and his followers are weakening the Alliance and doing European security a great disservice.
That’s also why admitting Poland in particular to the alliance was an error. Poland has ongoing territorial disputes with Russia. Do we really expect the U. S. to pursue those claims on behalf of Poland? Of course not.
Adding Ukraine to NATO would similarly be an error. As George Kennan pointed out some time ago, it would be like the Soviet Union admitting Pennsylvania to the Warsaw Pact.
I think that U. S. economic and munitions support for Ukraine is right and proper because I am anti-invasion but that’s where I think our support should end. And the U. S. government has a fiduciary responsibility which it is not presently satisfying to ensure that our aid actually gets to the Ukrainian military and is used appropriately. The limitation of our commitment I support is not because I am pro-Putin or pro-Russian but because I am not pro-Ukrainian. I am pro-American and our national interests in Ukraine are very limited.
If you really were anti-invasion, you would denounce the US engineered 2014 coup that removed Ukraine’s legitimate, democratically elected government, and that installed the current neo-nazi junta.
As has been made clear by people associated with the US government (and especially the Nuland-Kagan clan), the Russo-Ukrainian war was instigated and maintained as a means of forcing regime change in Russia and precipitating the fragmentation of the Russian state. So far, Ukraine and western Europe are the main victims of US perfidity.
For that matter, you would have denounced the Ashkenazi invasion of Palestine, and their subsequent ethnic cleansing and genocide of the native Palestinians. By the way, there is a significant Christian minority in Palestine, who are also being ethnically cleansed and genocided by the invading Ashkenazi.
This is madness, but it is beyond silly. Russia is not getting past the Dnieper without the Ukrainian Cossacks they are killing.
I do not care about Ukraine or Russia. Their problems are not ours, and we can only make things worse. I rarely add anything because most commenters are clueless – historically and militarily.
Militarily, Russia is slightly above the Arabs. There are some elite Russian units, but that is it. Other than nukes, they are worthless. Furthermore, the Eastern Europeans are not pushovers, and they can hold their own.
NATO’s biggest problem is equipment and armaments. Most countries have de-industrialized, and they refuse to re-industrialize. No NATO country has the ability to conduct sustained large scale warfare.
Winning a large scale war requires killing and destruction. A few smart bombs and drones will not cut it. NATO has a superior military, but they cannot field it. Russia can field its inferior army, but they cannot get past the Dnieper. The only thing NATO and Russia have are nukes.
Ukraine and Russia are in a domestic dispute that has gone on for over 600 years. Sometimes Ukraine is independent from Russia, and other times it is ruled by Russia. It depends on the Russian ruler (historically the Czar) and the Ukrainian Boyars and Cossacks.
No matter who “wins” this fight, it will occur again, and again, and again.
(BTW: The Russian Empire and the Soviet Union are not the same – not even close.)
Are you addressing me? I denounced the coup when it took place.