The editors of the Washington Post look forward to the NATO summit in Vilnius:
As things stand now, only 11 of 31 members meet its target of spending 2 percent of annual gross economic output on defense.
Yet they have little choice but to step up their game, because Mr. Putin has proved that it is folly to play down the threat Moscow poses.
That danger is likely to persist following the illegal war in Ukraine, whenever it finally ends, and addressing it will be high on the Vilnius agenda. NATO’s collective security guarantee, under which all members pledge to respond to an attack on one, means it cannot grant Kyiv’s wish for accession without drawing the alliance into the war against Russia. But the leaders can and should craft concrete, long-term plans to give Ukraine top-shelf arms, training and intelligence.
while at The Guardian Simon Tisdall insists that NATO forces “step in” to prevent Ukraine from losing to Russia:
The pressing question of Ukraine’s membership is expected to dominate this week’s pivotal summit of 31 Nato states in Vilnius, Lithuania’s capital. Volodymyr Zelenskiy knows a gold-embossed official invite is unlikely to arrive while his country is still at war with Russia. But Ukraine’s leader is urging US president Joe Biden and alliance leaders to take immediate “concrete stepsâ€, including security guarantees, a roadmap and timeline. Zelenskiy argues that would boost morale and send an implacable message to Vladimir Putin.
Zelenskiy is right. Like Finland, Ukraine’s accession should be fast-tracked. Yet important though this issue is, Nato faces a far bigger question this week: whether it is doing enough to ensure Kyiv wins the war – or at least, doesn’t lose.
There’s a risk, if the current counteroffensive produces no breakthrough, weapons supplies run short, a new winter energy crisis strikes and western public support drops further, that Zelenskiy will be forced into negotiations – even into trading territory for peace. Secret, informal US-Russia talks are already under way. If Ukraine were already a Nato member, as promised 15 years ago, all this would not be happening.
My hypothesis from the president’s recent announcement that he would send cluster munitions to Ukraine was that he was doing it because we had run out of other munitions to send and those were gathering dust on the shelves. I see that others have begun to think of that as well.
I suspect that if the topic of NATO membership for Ukraine is the main topic for the summit, discussion may get pretty heated. Arguendo, let’s assume that Ukraine is admitted to NATO. What will happen?
- The alliance will collapse
- Nothing much that isn’t already happening
- NATO member states will begin committing troops to Ukraine
- Russia will immediately start using nuclear weapons to attack Western capitols
- Something else (specify)
I lean towards some combination of B (most likely) and A.
I would also suggest that we can tell nothing from President Biden’s repeated assertion that there will be no American “boots on the ground” in Ukraine. As conditions have changed we have done several things, e.g. sending F-16s, sending long-range weapons, sending F-16s, that he had said we wouldn’t do.
As to the Russian threat, in March, 2022, less than a month after the war started, representatives of Kiev and Moscow met in Istanbul and initialed a ceasefire that would have implemented the Minsk agreements and kept the Donbas in Ukraine. Russia withdrew its troops from near Kiev as a sign of good faith. The US immediately sent Boris Johnson to Kiev to squash the agreement, which he did.
It should be clear that the real external threat to Europe is the US, not Russia. US sanctions on Russia (and China) are also sanctions on Europe, and especially Germany. The US attack on Nordstream was a direct attack on the German economy. Europe is essentially a collection of American vassals under American military occupation. The Vilnius meeting would be a good chance for the Europeans to separate themselves from American adventurism, but the are two besotted and feckless to even try to save themselves from an abusive relationship.
“My hypothesis from the president’s recent announcement that he would send cluster munitions to Ukraine was that he was doing it because we had run out of other munitions to send and those were gathering dust on the shelves”
It is not a hypothesis. Biden confirmed that fact in an interview — through my understanding is this is supposed to “bridge” when increased production is realized.
On a soapbox. The statement was taken half seriously by the press because of a widely held perception Biden misspeaks due to age or some unknown medical reason. The same happened with Trump’s statements which were held as “Trump playing crazy”. It can work for a while, but it wears out like Trump did by the end of his Presidency.
On the war itself, the action continues the trend of escalation. And I think the sunk costs are so deep that if Ukraine required it to keep going, NATO would put troops on the line. Despite rumors of negotiations; we are a year to 2 years out at a minimum from negotiations (if one side doesn’t collapse).
I suspect that will encounter supply chain problems. You can’t deindustrialize for 30 years and expect industrial production to bounce back overnight.