Anne R. Pierce’s Post

"Will NATO really allow Russia’s genocidal campaign to continue on in the heart of Europe? Does “never again” mean anything? For existential reasons. Russia threatens not just Ukraine, but democracies across Europe and beyond. Are NATO countries willing to risk their security and way of life for a temporary reprieve? For peace and stability. Russia brings war, mayhem and trauma everywhere it goes. Would NATO gamble on an elusive compromise with Russia when Putin always uses purported “peace processes” to buy time and cover for more war and aggression? To save what is left of the post-World War II world order. The emboldened Russia-China-Iran axis seeks a new world order dominated by authoritarians. Will NATO miss the chance to send the axis an unambiguous signal and setback by acting decisively against Russia?"

Great piece from Michael Ferguson about “Partitioning #Ukraine isn’t a solution, it’s a bigger problem.” ( The Hill ) #russia #military #history #defense #nato #ukraine “Who, then, would guarantee the sovereignty of a new border in #Ukraine🇺🇦? Even if Zelensky decides to negotiate, he will almost certainly demand additional security guarantees from the West in exchange for relinquishing territory to Russia. This would place the White House and #NATO in a precarious position, considering the Kremlin’s initial aim of seizing Kyiv — an objective more likely delayed rather than abandoned. If Russia can acquire territory by crossing international borders and compelling negotiations, what kind of deterrent effect would new borders have on subsequent acquisitions that the old borders did not? Any peace agreement would hinge on this question, and it is one that Kyiv evidently cannot answer alone. If opponents of aid to Ukraine want to save money and prevent war, indulging Moscow’s imperialist designs will only undermine those goals. Foreign military aid to Ukraine avoids the escalatory tracks that led America into some of its costliest wars while also denying legitimacy to #Russia’s unprovoked assault. There are plenty of policy issues to debate this election year, including how to balance the burden of international security with domestic priorities, and even the appropriate ratio of economic-to-military aid going to Ukraine.”

I have mixed feelings about today’s statement by 32 NATO countries. On the one hand, it was meant to send a clear signal to Ukraine that ‘’the doors are open for you’’ using language like  ‘’Ukraine is on an ‘irreversible’ path to NATO’’. This statement also means that the collective West started overcoming its fear of the fascist ZZ state. This is a good news. At the same time, the qualification that Ukraine will join ‘’only after the war is over to ensure that Russia never attacks Ukraine again’’ sends a wrong message to the lord of ZZ flies. I believe he will interpret it in a way that as long as he continues his aggression Ukraine will never become a part of NATO. This is a bad news. So, where does it take us? Basically, NATO suggests Ukraine permanently surrender its territories and people occupied by the ZZ state in exchange for security guarantees. Why permanently? Because Putin wants to legalize his theft. As one of his key demands, he made it clear (just 3 weeks ago) that he wanted 4 southeastern regions of Ukraine. Would this move work and deliver some sort of peace? Don’t think so. Putin wants to subjugate the whole of Ukraine and destroy its statehood. Having four southeastern regions has never been his end game. Hence, he will continue the war. On balance, despite some positive developments at the summit, we are still very far from stopping the ruZZian war machine and securing peace. #stoprussia #standwithukraine https://lnkd.in/gw-Fk9s8

An article worth reading that demonstrates the dilemma facing NATO, Europe & the West. Commentators & Politicians have long said a joined-up Europe has the economic power to easily out-play Russia. On paper Europes economies are much larger than Russia, however to put them on a war-footing as Russia has done with its economy isn’t going to happen any time soon. What then can Ukraine expect from its allies?

#RadioMoskva Drawing Article 5 lines for Ukraine to end the war Everyone is fed up with the war in Ukraine, and starting to finally admit is unwinnable. But that has been clear for more than a year now, since the failure of Ukraine’s 2023 summer offensive. It’s looking increasingly likely that ceasefire talks could happen soon, but what would that look like? Firstly, it’s a given that Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskiy will have to give up some land, and has already floated the idea of areferendum to get a mandate from the people for that. But there is also increasing talk about a “West German” solution, where after unification Nato membership covered the western half of the country, but not the eastern. A similar deal could be in store of Ukraine: where the western half of the country is pulled into the Western brotherhood, but the eastern half remains in Russian hands, and disputed. 

TFF 📌 Russia is not a threat to NATO or neutral states. Full stop. Jan Oberg confronts the incredibly populist fear-mongering that only serves NATO's own perverse militarism. Those who say Russia is a threat to NATO, please present a credible scenario in which Russia occupies the Eifel Tower, Big Ben and the Little Mermaid in 48 hours... #militarism #NOTONATO #fearology #fearmongering #threatanalysis #threat #Russiaisnothreat #securitybullshit #armament #NATOexpansion On The Transnational https://lnkd.in/dMYwE78U

No Plan B. Excellent analysis by Mr Bryen on what happened in the Elysee Palace and the very fact that the collective West does not have a Plan B for their project Ukraine. It also says a lot about the type of social and educational system in the West which tends to promote out-of-touch and child-like people to the top of the political food chain. […] But the real deficit is one that applies not only to the Europeans but also to the United States. There is no alternative plan, no Plan B, to deal with a Russian victory in Ukraine. Even Ukrainian leaders now understand they are in a trap. By rejecting timely negotiations with Russia, the US and NATO have set themselves up for a humiliating defeat, and the Ukrainians will probably have to adjust to Russia’s victory, however reluctantly. […] #ukrainewar #nato #macron #europe #europeanunion #unitedstates #france #germany #russia #nostrategy #planb

This report from the Hudson Institute offers some good ideas on how to beat Russia in Moldova. But the plan they suggest won't work. The West did all of these things in Ukraine, and it didn't keep Russia from invading Ukraine, and the West still isn't beating Russia in Ukraine (although it could if it wanted to). There really is only one way to beat Russia in Moldova. But the Moldovans would have to ask for it, and I doubt the Biden Administration would agree, given its fear of Russia. Put NATO troops in Moldova. If you want to deny territory to the enemy, you occupy that territory. This is a basic rule of warfare that the US/NATO continues to miss. #moldova Ashley Roque Lara Seligman Haley Britzky Joe Gould The Merge DefenseScoop Defense Brief Defense News Tony Capaccio Paul McLeary Connor O'Brien Jake Epstein Colin Demarest Valerie Insinna Breaking Defense Defensemirror.com The Defense Post Audrey Decker Atlantic Council Institute for the Study of War Institute for Defense Analyses Center for a New American Security (CNAS) Moldova Ministry of Foreign Affairs and European Integration Luke Coffey https://lnkd.in/gG4NmZ2z

As Ukraine faces the prospect of an "apocalyptic winter" amid ongoing Russian aggression, Polish journalist Anna Husarska and Ukrainian activist Mykola Viknianskiy propose a bold solution: NATO should deploy non-combat troops to the war-torn nation to bolster its defense and send a clear message to Putin. With the 80th anniversary of D-Day coinciding with urgent calls for action, a coalition of NATO countries, including Estonia, France, Lithuania, and Poland, signal their readiness to send forces focused on crucial support roles like training, demining, and equipment maintenance. French President Macron's recent speech in Dresden hinted at the necessity of confronting Russian forces on Ukrainian soil, as experts argue that NATO's non-combat presence is crucial for deterring Putin and protecting Europe. However, the proposed deployment also carries risks, with Foreign Minister Lavrov warning that military instructors in Ukraine are "legitimate targets" for Russia. As proponents emphasize the need for immediate retaliation if NATO personnel come under attack, the high stakes of the mission become clear. Echoing Margaret Thatcher's resolute advice during the Gulf War, Husarska and Viknianskiy argue that "this is no time to go wobbly" on Ukraine, urging NATO to act as a moral imperative to end Russia's war of aggression where it started and secure a brighter future for the Ukrainian people.

The only way to guarantee Ukraine's survival and long-term security -- and most importantly, to prevent direct US involvement in another major war on the European continent -- is to finally guarantee Ukraine a place in NATO. It was a promise given to Ukraine in 2008, and we have seen the disastrous consequences of the failure to fulfill that promise, first in 2014 and then in 2022. Former US Ambassador to Ukraine Bill Taylor shows the way in this terrific The New York Times oped. BLUF: "Europe will not be secure — and will not be whole and free — until Ukraine is in NATO. Ukraine will not agree to end the war without it. The United States is key and must show sustained, persistent and creative leadership. With confidence and strength, and a lot of hard work on all sides, Ukraine can become a member of NATO. For peace in Europe, it must."