NATO relations with Ukraine

[cwbullet]

Were the two army brigades, that were removed, returned to Europe after the Obama era?

They were not necessarily removed. They were moved and sort of replaced.

 

[user 35280]

They were not necessarily removed. They were moved and sort of replaced.

Never should have been removed, moved or whatever in the first place.

 

[Hobie1dog]

Wow, interesting thread and I'm highly impressed by everyone's knowledge on the subject.

 

[Peartree]

I read Pat Buchanan's editorial today. He advocates a U.S. policy that supports U.S. interests. He sees no U.S. interests in the Ukraine or Tiawan. Furthermore, he thinks the U.S. is arrogant for trying to export democracy as the only true form of government when we have had many totalitarian allies over the years, including both China and Russia. Not saying I agree with him, but it was an interesting editorial.

I can't see how Buchannan can even think that this is true. Anyone who buys or uses any sort of technology has a significant interest in Taiwan. Taiwan is the home of advanced chip fabrication for almost every computer, automobile, cellphone, etc., and, at least in part, just about every electronic tool and toy that you have in your home.

This is not about NATO, or its relations with Ukraine, which are minor and insignificant.
NATO has no obligations w.r.t. Ukraine.

Also, not true. These are the bullet points from NATO's own website:

• Dialogue and cooperation started when newly independent Ukraine joined the North Atlantic Cooperation Council (1991) and the Partnership for Peace programme (1994).
• Relations were strengthened with the signing of the 1997 Charter on a Distinctive Partnership, which established the NATO-Ukraine Commission (NUC) to take cooperation forward.
• The 2009 Declaration to Complement the NATO-Ukraine Charter mandated the NUC, through Ukraine’s Annual National Programme, to underpin Ukraine’s efforts to take forward reforms aimed at implementing Ukraine’s Euro-Atlantic aspirations, in line with the decisions of the 2008 NATO Summit in Bucharest.
• Cooperation has deepened over time and is mutually beneficial, with Ukraine actively contributing to NATO-led operations and missions.
• Priority is given to support for comprehensive reform in the security and defence sector, which is vital for Ukraine’s democratic development and for strengthening its ability to defend itself.
• In response to the Russia-Ukraine conflict, NATO has reinforced its support for capability development and capacity-building in Ukraine. The Allies condemn and will not recognise Russia’s illegal and illegitimate annexation of Crimea, and its destabilising and aggressive activities in eastern Ukraine and the Black Sea region. NATO has increased its presence in the Black Sea and stepped up maritime cooperation with Ukraine and Georgia.
• Since the NATO Summit in Warsaw in July 2016, NATO’s practical support for Ukraine is set out in the Comprehensive Assistance Package (CAP) for Ukraine.
• In June 2017, the Ukrainian Parliament adopted legislation reinstating membership in NATO as a strategic foreign and security policy objective. In 2019, a corresponding amendment to Ukraine’s Constitution entered into force.
• In September 2020, President Volodymyr Zelenskyy approved Ukraine’s new National Security Strategy, which provides for the development of the distinctive partnership with NATO with the aim of membership in NATO.

 

[vcp]

Re: sanctions against Russia, I thought this was interesting:

Popov further expressed concern about reliance on Germany to help fuel the Soyuz rocket and the Soyuz spacecraft that launches humans. The issue is that vernier thrusters on the Soyuz boosters and in the de-orbit engines of the Soyuz-MS spacecraft use a special grade of highly refined hydrogen peroxide. Production of this hydrogen peroxide in Russia, however, depends on deliveries of chemicals produced by a German company called Evonik Resource Efficiency GmbH. These deliveries are subject to limitation by international sanctions against the Russian Federation.

OTOH, doesn't Russia supply Germany most of its natural gas?

 

[cwbullet]

Never should have been removed, moved or whatever in the first place.

I concur. They were replaced by more mobile troops. Now we need against modern armor.

 

[cwbullet]

OTOH, doesn't Russia supply Germany most of its natural gas?

Yes and much of Europe.

 

[Woody's Workshop]

My personal thoughts only here.
USA said they would show force in the area of Taiwan, but would not intervene. Mostly because our Military wants to use the water for their ships, but also said they would not withstand blockades.
As for fighting a war on 2 fronts (Like the Major Mistake Hitler did with Russia) on simultaneously launched by China and Russia is something I don't think any of our leaders are stupid enough to do. At least I would hope they were not that stupid. It would leave the USA exceptionally vulnerable on the home front for key disabling strikes to Military and related facilities. Satellites have show our enemies their exact locations.
While I'm sure there are deep, deep political reason's why things are done I try to keep a more realistic view.
China depends on the US to buy their goods (Thank You Kindly Nixon , as does Taiwan, but not so much and their stuff is better than China's!) and without them we stumble. On the other hand, Russia and China has always been somewhat close allies. But unlike Chain, Russia doesn't depend upon our $, just our weak networks to hack. But then again, so does China. And certain Middle Eastern Countries. (Makes you wonder if the components purchased from Chain is specifically made so other countries can do what they do in our Networks, doesn't it? It makes sense to me since we are China's biggest hurtle.)
And you have to keep in mind Japan. Chain could very easily open up a front there. Doing so there would get us involved pulling forces to the area. We don't depend upon Japan for low tech stuff anymore, but do in tech forward areas. By China bypassing Taiwan for Japan, they would not be destroying a possible income making Island Nation they would inherit and could put to good use. Reconstruction after even a short war would take years and the cost of doing so would slightly drain China's wealth.
You have to look at things through China's eyes, and compare to what they are doing today to leaders of the past that have tried strictly militarily.
Chain is taking the war to the world piece by piece by loaning money knowing they won't get paid back, then moving in and taking over. They have established a huge Military Port in India, has a nice chunk of land and business in Africa. They are financing a very profitable and particular market to the US in Argentina. China is buying land here in the US to do manufacturing that WE depend upon.
Make no mistake, China has an agenda, and the sooner we get out from under their need the better off we will be. And not them buy anything more on US Soil!
And I still believe COVID was a deliverate attack on the World, since it came withing a week of China signing a trade deal with us. By the way, how is that progressing since COVID? Anyone know how much they have purchased since the signing of the trade agreement? I haven't followed that, but I would almost bet a grand total of Nothing. And lets not forget China concealed facts about COVID and denied the world to medical and cause research!
Russia is just Russia, as been since the fall of the Monarchy, which wasn't a whole lot better by the way. It's best to not poke a sleeping giant with a sharp stick, like Japan did to us at Pearl Harbor. Although I truly believe our highest government officials new well enough ahead of time they could have prevented it. They had to let it happen so it would rally the Country that didn't want to be in another World War to step up to bat.
In the future, China will slowly drain the economic wealth of countries making them unable to produce or afford to get into any confrontation.
I see China as the Anti-C***T (I'm not perticurlally a religeous person mind you, but if the medifor fits...), we can not be with them or for them and need to get out from under their hold financially.
And by that I mean when you go shopping for beef, make sure it's not from Argentina. Or cloths and goods not from China, or anything else that comes out of China. They make purely disposable goods. We have been doing more and more importing from India, but what I have seen it's not purely disposable, it's been fairly good quality. I bought my wife jewelry made in India and sold exclusively here in the US. Good stuff and affordable. I've ran into several things for my Leather Crafting made in India which has much better steel in the crap I get out of China. Unlike China's stuff (some knives excluded), India's tool steel doesn't need constant sharpening to keep working.
I have a straight razor from India, only needs stropped once or twice a month. I have to strop all my China made straight razors every time I use them. IF they make it through a whole shave! I love making things exceedingly sharp, and using them. But I don't want to spend 3/4 of my time sharpening, and 1/4 of my time using them for the task's at hand. From the Kitchen, to shaving, to EDC and specialty knives to my Leather Crafting tools.
Lately I have found X-ACTO blades ain't what they use to be, so I buy another USA made brand when I need to. Made by IDL Techni-Edge, I bought a 100 pack of both #1 & #11 blades and the Hi Carbon steel really holds an edge. WAY LONGER than X-ACTO latest offerings under the Elmer's Glue name. I have some blades that are probably 40 years old from X-ACTO from way back when. They are good blades. I'm kind of saving them for something special, but will probably get handed down to my son. I just can't bring myself to use them up.
I say again, My personal thoughts only here.

 

[Alan15578]

I concur. They were replaced by more mobile troops. Now we need against modern armor.

During the Cold War, tactical nukes kept Russia out of Germany. Just sayin'.

One of the most amazing things to me is that East and West Germany were able to reunite without a war.

I'm hoping that China and Taiwan will peacefully reunite one day, but China would have to make radical changes to enable that to happen.

 

[boomtube-mk2]

During the Cold War, tactical nukes kept Russia out of Germany. Just sayin'.

One of the most amazing things to me is that East and West Germany were able to reunite without a war.

I'm hoping that China and Taiwan will peacefully reunite one day, but China would have to make radical changes to enable that to happen.

Many Moons ago I told a friend that I believed that within a decade North and South Korea would reconcile and merge peacefully.
I said that in the early '80's . . . shows what I know.

 

[StreuB1]

I think you might be underestimating what we will do. We will get involved. It will take more than an attack on Ukraine, but trust me NATO (and hence the US) will not standby and watch another invasion of Ukraine.

No underestimating at all. I think it might be the way I worded what I said. I firmly believe that we will go all in if they invade Ukraine. Like, ALL IN.

As naive as the current generations are, and while I think another WW2 might put some people in check. I believe that the world cannot chance having another repeat of that and we cannot let it happen, no matter what the cost is.

Not mincing words. I am 100% in favor of full military deployment to help protect our allies, and Ukraine. The Ukrainian people don't want this, the Russian people don't want this. This is the desire of a select few Russian oligarchs and that is it.

 

[boomtube-mk2]

https://www.yahoo.com/news/russian-citizens-now-being-prepped-164259149.html

Reading this as to what is being told to the Russian people and the rhetoric coming out of the Russian government; it concerns me that Putin and his ilk are painting themselves into a corner with regards to NATO and even their own population.
If things don't go the way Putin wants them to; what are his options after telling everyone that Russia's hypersonic weapons can reduce America to radioactive ashes.

 

[icyclops]

As I said, both Korea and Vietnam were proxy wars where both China and the Soviet Union never openly acknowledged their participation even when it was obvious to the outside world.

If Chinese naval and air force units move against Taiwan and we start shooting down their aircraft or sinking their ships, that's another thing entirely as compared to Korea.

If Russia moves against the Ukraine, they might very well take the entire nation before the U.S. and its allies could build-up the forces needed to stop them.
We could see something along the lines of a Blitzkrieg with Russian overrunning the Ukraine forces in a matter of weeks maybe less.

You have to think of this scenario in todays warfare arena And not WWII, Vietnam, or Korean War…. We do not need to send in vast amounts of troops to do enough damage to make Russia or China think twice And provide mass casualties without going nuclear. We (as well as they) have the advanced weaponry to make a real dent if activated in the early phase and not let them get too far into the country. Believe it, we have the resources to start yet another war….the hard part is taking out those forces that are already engrained…just like Afghanistan and the Taliban. Agreed, if you do not strike soon enough any foothold would make things much harder and probably would require some ground troops. But Cruise M, attack drones, and other smart weaponry are already over there by now or can be implemented sooner than we can probably expect…
The Global Hawks are watching.

 

[boomtube-mk2]

But both Russia and China have all that advanced weaponry as well, so after we and they get done with the mass annihilation and expenditure of all that expensive hardware; what then?

With regards to Chain's potential invasion of Tiawan; sooner or later it would come down to a decision by China as to whether or not to sink one or more of our aircraft carriers that are in the theater of operation and if they decide to try and are successful then again; what then?

 

[cwbullet]

But both Russia and China have all that advanced weaponry as well, so after we and they get done with the mass annihilation and expenditure of all that expensive hardware; what then?

With regards to Chain's potential invasion of Tiawan; sooner or later it would come down to a decision by China as to whether or not to sink one or more of our aircraft carriers that are in the theater of operation and if they decide to try and are successful then again; what then?

I think they will eventually try. I think our weapon systems are still quite a bit superior. Taiwan is pretty good also.

 

[cwbullet]

https://www.yahoo.com/news/russian-citizens-now-being-prepped-164259149.html

Reading this as to what is being told to the Russian people and the rhetoric coming out of the Russian government; it concerns me that Putin and his ilk are painting themselves into a corner with regards to NATO and even their own population.
If things don't go the way Putin wants them to; what are his options after telling everyone that Russia's hypersonic weapons can reduce America to radioactive ashes.

Hypersonic weapons are, to an extent, more theater than reality. We have tested them and so have Russian and China. Neither side has a true operational force. I am not worried about the rhetoric. This si nothing new for Russia.

 

[boatgeek]

I think they will eventually try. I think our weapon systems are still quite a bit superior. Taiwan is pretty good also.

I'm not so sure. China has a pretty good thing going right now. They exert an enormous amount of economic control globally, not to mention military muscle-flexing around their weaker neighbors. Their leadership is able to take advantage of that gravy train*, so they'll think twice about messing with the current system.

An actual attack on a US carrier group is an enormous risk. First of all, if the attack fails, they lose face in a big way. Maybe Taiwan or the Philippines won't feel as worried about them. It could be worse if it succeeds. A shooting war with the US cuts off their biggest trade partner and stops the gravy train, not to mention significant risk that they'll get killed if they're in a significant (or honestly, insignificant) government building. At minimum, there will be an awful lot of suffering in the population as the US takes down power and water systems. China might take that step, but it will take an awful lot to get the approval.

* Most politicians find a way to make money off of being a politician or an ex-politician. That's even more so in authoritarian regimes. Whether it's in the form of outright corruption or fig leaf corruption ("Hello former Senator X! Let's get you settled in your new $2M/year lobbying job!") depends on the country and its local laws and social expectations.

 

[cwbullet]

I'm not so sure. China has a pretty good thing going right now. They exert an enormous amount of economic control globally, not to mention military muscle-flexing around their weaker neighbors. Their leadership is able to take advantage of that gravy train*, so they'll think twice about messing with the current system.

An actual attack on a US carrier group is an enormous risk. First of all, if the attack fails, they lose face in a big way. Maybe Taiwan or the Philippines won't feel as worried about them. It could be worse if it succeeds. A shooting war with the US cuts off their biggest trade partner and stops the gravy train, not to mention significant risk that they'll get killed if they're in a significant (or honestly, insignificant) government building. At minimum, there will be an awful lot of suffering in the population as the US takes down power and water systems. China might take that step, but it will take an awful lot to get the approval.

* Most politicians find a way to make money off of being a politician or an ex-politician. That's even more so in authoritarian regimes. Whether it's in the form of outright corruption or fig leaf corruption ("Hello former Senator X! Let's get you settled in your new $2M/year lobbying job!") depends on the country and its local laws and social expectations.

That is the same type of statements people said about Germany prior to WWII.

 

[boatgeek]

That is the same type of statements people said about Germany prior to WWII.

I should have appended to my post that China (probably) wouldn't pull the trigger unless they are 100% absolutely sure they will win. Keeping a technological edge and making it clear that they might not win is all part of the diplomacy. Incidentally, Germany was 100% sure that they'd win, and they might have gotten there without some good luck on the Allies' part and poor decision making on the Germans' part.

That said, I disagree with your premise somewhat. Pre-WWII, Germany was actively talking about (and actually) taking land area. While China is active in the ocean, they aren't even talking about land grabs except for the same standard line about reunification with Taiwan that they've had since forever. Sure, they're being bullies, but they're also pretty careful not to step far enough that anyone will punch back.

This opinion worth exactly what you paid for it...

 

[cwbullet]

I should have appended to my post that China (probably) wouldn't pull the trigger unless they are 100% absolutely sure they will win. Keeping a technological edge and making it clear that they might not win is all part of the diplomacy. Incidentally, Germany was 100% sure that they'd win, and they might have gotten there without some good luck on the Allies' part and poor decision making on the Germans' part.

That said, I disagree with your premise somewhat. Pre-WWII, Germany was actively talking about (and actually) taking land area. While China is active in the ocean, they aren't even talking about land grabs except for the same standard line about reunification with Taiwan that they've had since forever. Sure, they're being bullies, but they're also pretty careful not to step far enough that anyone will punch back.

This opinion worth exactly what you paid for it...

I somewhat agree. War should also be done for what is right. Morally and ethically, it is hard for me to ignore the work camps in China.

I really want China and Russia to play nice with the rest of the world. War is often a necessary evil but it is one I pray we avoid.

 

[Peartree]

On the one hand, China has always played the long game. Unlike many contemporaries, they often see themselves as a part of an empire that spans three millennia. They sign100 year "lease" agreements with England and Portugal for Hong Kong and Macau and let those nations build territories for them. They're currently building the Belt and Road project to control world trade 50 or 100 years into the future. With that mindset, you might expect that they would just bide their time for Taiwan to "return to the fold."

But, on the other hand, all indications are that China has less than 20 years of dominance left before they see huge, and unavoidable, economic and military impacts from their former one-child policy. Those children have already entered the workforce, but when their parents begin to retire they will have twice as many elderly as they have working people. Current projections are that they won't have enough people to staff businesses or populate the military. It is estimated that China's influence will be greatly reduced for at least one or two generations. With that in mind, China may be inclined to look at Taiwan as a "project" to be undertaken sooner rather than later, since "later" could easily be 50 or 100 years.

 

[icyclops]

But both Russia and China have all that advanced weaponry as well, so after we and they get done with the mass annihilation and expenditure of all that expensive hardware; what then?

With regards to Chain's potential invasion of Tiawan; sooner or later it would come down to a decision by China as to whether or not to sink one or more of our aircraft carriers that are in the theater of operation and if they decide to try and are successful then again; what then?

After all the CMs and other advanced weaponry are fired and the Ukrainian boarder is diminished, it will be up to Russia to see how far they want to take it….stop at the Ukraine or hit other targets….the latter starts a war for sure….but if you don’t have massive troops in there then all they will have limited targets unless they want a war and strike outside the arena … so what’s next would really be up to Russia….don’t ya think? My point was you don’t necessarily need massive troop build up to be targets when you have other weapons/options to pick off enemy targets.

 

[Dotini]

Reportedly, Russia has cut its gas exports to Europe. They say it has nothing to do with Ukraine, but it almost certainly does. In related news, Belgium has decided to shut all seven of its nuclear energy power plants, and France plans to close 50% of its of reactors which currently provide over 70% of its electrical energy. With coal and nuclear being phased out, Europe becomes more dependent on gas for reliable winter hearing.

Some years ago I read about a long term neocon plan for the US to attack, invade and conquer Russia. We would seize all its gold, oil and gas, rare Earth minerals, forests and fresh water for our exclusive use, divvying up all its best provinces for ourselves and our supporters in Israel, Saudi Arabia and elsewhere. Is this plan still on? It is said "might makes right" and "the ends justify the means". If our ends are to do good, then surely getting our hair mussed up in a little scuffle is justified? Machiavelli and Dr Strangelove will see us through to the end.

 

[CalebJ]

Reportedly, Russia has cut its gas exports to Europe. They say it has nothing to do with Ukraine, but it almost certainly does. In related news, Belgium has decided to shut all seven of its nuclear energy power plants, and France plans to close 50% of its of reactors which currently provide over 70% of its electrical energy. With coal and nuclear being phased out, Europe becomes more dependent on gas for reliable winter hearing.

Some years ago I read about a long term neocon plan for the US to attack, invade and conquer Russia. We would seize all its gold, oil and gas, rare Earth minerals, forests and fresh water for our exclusive use, divvying up all its best provinces for ourselves and our supporters in Israel, Saudi Arabia and elsewhere. Is this plan still on? It is said "might makes right" and "the ends justify the means". If our ends are to do good, then surely getting our hair mussed up in a little scuffle is justified? Machiavelli and Dr Strangelove will see us through to the end.

Did I read that right - invading and conquering Russia as a 'little scuffle'?

 

[boatgeek]

Some years ago I read about a long term neocon plan for the US to attack, invade and conquer Russia. We would seize all its gold, oil and gas, rare Earth minerals, forests and fresh water for our exclusive use, divvying up all its best provinces for ourselves and our supporters in Israel, Saudi Arabia and elsewhere. Is this plan still on? It is said "might makes right" and "the ends justify the means". If our ends are to do good, then surely getting our hair mussed up in a little scuffle is justified? Machiavelli and Dr Strangelove will see us through to the end.

Did I read that right - invading and conquering Russia as a 'little scuffle'?

"The only way to win is not to play"

I have no doubt that the US could take on Russia's conventional forces, should we decide to do that. The nuclear forces, not so much.

 

[Dotini]

"The only way to win is not to play"

I have no doubt that the US could take on Russia's conventional forces, should we decide to do that. The nuclear forces, not so much.

The progressive thinking is that, if your intentions are good, any amount of failure, harm or disaster is excusable and justified.

 

[GlueckAuf]

Lethal aid (read, NOT blankets and MREs) in the form of Javelins and drones that have been provided to Ukraine recently by NATO member states are apparently a worry to Mr. Putin's conscripted tankers. They're cobbling together slat armor over the turrets of their main battle tanks.

Will it work? Probably not. But the alternative for a Russian tank crew facing a fusillade of Javelins in top-attack mode with a turret full of combustible case ammo and topped-off hull stores of diesel isn't very pleasant either.

 

[StreuB1]

I think the belief that that US has the upper hand with regard to our nuclear armament. Russia has many many different nuclear weapons to choose from with regard to ICBMS, while the US only has 2. The US also has no Mt capable warheads any longer which means we can be strategic in their use as opposed to painting with a broad brush. Though, there is no way to win a nuclear conflict. You either put warheads on foreheads first and defend inbound as much as possible or you loose. There is no middle ground.

 

[Dotini]

We should rush - hurry, hurry hurry without doubt or further thinking - to attack now with all our strength, risking the lives of all Americans and indeed global civilization itself in the effort to rid the planet of these red headed, blue-eyed Huns which have been the scourge of the civilized portion of Earth for thousands of years.

 

[StreuB1]

Lethal aid (read, NOT blankets and MREs) in the form of Javelins and drones that have been provided to Ukraine recently by NATO member states are apparently a worry to Mr. Putin's conscripted tankers. They're cobbling together slat armor over the turrets of their main battle tanks.

Will it work? Probably not. But the alternative for a Russian tank crew facing a fusillade of Javelins in top-attack mode with a turret full of combustible case ammo and topped-off hull stores of diesel isn't very pleasant either.

Javelin uses a 2-stage warhead for attacking reactive armor. I think it would take something as little as a firmware update to increase the time delay between the stage 1 warhead (could be used to clear the "visors") and the stage 2 warhead once the visors are clear of the turret.