Oleksiy Tatarenko’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?"

Live🔺War latest: Putin only wants 'total Ukrainian capitulation' - and is 'not interested' in negotiations to end war The new NATO chief has warned Vladimir Putin is ramping up "reckless actions" and is using Ukraine as a "testing ground" for missiles. Meanwhile, a respected thinktank has said the Russian leader is only interested in the "total capitulation" of Ukraine and not a negotiated settlement. 👁️Sky News https://lnkd.in/gNfdDnv8 🔺What could a truce look like? The West and the wider world seem to be converging on the idea that a peace deal is coming in the new year, according to our security and defence analyst Michael Clarke. 🔺But what could such a deal look like? According to Clarke, it won't involve the immediate NATO membership Volodymyr Zelenskyy called for in an exclusive interview with Sky's Stuart Ramsay last week. What Ukraine is interested in, he assesses, is article five of the NATO charter - which says member states will go to war with any country that attacks a fellow member. "The parties agree that an armed attack against one or more of them in Europe or North America shall be considered an attack against them all." NATO charter article five Clarke suggests a workaround which gives Kyiv the security guarantees it wants without its outright accession to NATO. "Suppose British, French, German and other troops, even Polish troops, were involved in holding a line - a ceasefire line - that would in effect be a tripwire," he suggests. He says this would act as an article five guarantee "in all but name", as NATO members would attack Russia if any of its troops holding this hypothetical line were targeted by Moscow. "The question there, is are we brave enough to do it?" If there is a commitment to this, it's critical that NATO countries follow through on its pledges to Ukraine and threats to Russia, he adds. "I can promise you that Putin fully intends to take the whole of Ukraine at some time, unless he's prevented from doing so by significant power," he says. 👁️Watch Clarke's full analysis

DOES THE WEST WANT A NEGOTIATED PEACE IN UKRAINE? The article below from Modern War Institute at West Point does a good job of thinking through ways in which NATO could invite Ukraine into the alliance without requiring Article participation. I add it for this statement "But it is unclear how a sustainable armistice—something Washington badly needs in order to focus resources elsewhere—is possible as long as accession (to NATO) is withheld." While I think the statement should be true, but I am not sure it is. Especially based on the July NATO summit declaration which set out implied support for the Ukrainian "peace" plan that required unconditional retreat from all Ukrainian territory, war crimes tribunals, Russian reparations, and a host of other requirements. Especially with conditions on the ground being one of RUssian territorial advance, it seems like the West is settling in for a long war of years at best and decades or a frozen front at worst. Because of their stated objectives, it seems like Western leaders have decided that a Russia at war in Ukraine is good for the alliance, for the post-WWII rules based order, and good in the sense that it will eventually lead to Russian decline and weakness which it seems is why the West started this gamble in the first place. If more than 2 years of war in Ukraine has produced at least a not weakened Russia, how many more years, Ukrainian deaths, and physical destruction will be required to convince the West to change its objectives? And if it looks like Ukraine will collapse, which would at that point be a Western loss, what will NATO and the U.S. do to prevent it? Deploy troops to the front lines in Ukraine to stabilize the situation? #ukrainerussiawar #russiaukrainewar https://lnkd.in/d6D5c4tm

My latest. “Much time has been lost. Many opportunities for preemption, deterrence and collective action have been squandered. It is past time for NATO to stop Russia. Why is swift, pathbreaking action imperative? For moral reasons.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?” #NATO #Russia #Ukraine

#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. 

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?

This was a post I created for the second anniversary of the Russian invasion of Ukraine. Writing for The Military Show has necessitated that I keep a close watch of developments on the front and in the diplomatic theater, and these were the things which stood out to me. Because of character limits, this is a preview and you can read the full thing as a PDF here. Preview: Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine is now over two years old. As in most wars, the results have not met the expectations of either side. Before February 24th, many security experts were concerned about Russia’s military buildup. Moscow seemed to be discarding decades of Soviet incompetence and building a modern fighting force. Some expected Ukraine to fall as rapidly as Putin himself did. None of those expectations happened. Ukraine resisted heroically and, more importantly, with competence, throwing the invaders back at Kyiv and later routing them in the Kharkhiv and Kherson counteroffensives. By the end of 2022, the pendulum had swung the other way. Expectations were high for Ukraine. The Russians had low morale, Putin resorted to mobilizing poorly-trained conscripts, and his army was taking tens of thousands of casualties just in attempting to capture Bakhmut. Against such a force, Ukraine seemed well-positioned to launch another successful campaign, one which would reach the Sea of Azov and cut the invaders off from their base in Crimea. That didn’t happen, either. Ukraine’s offensive in Zaporizhzhia proved disappointing, failing even to take the city of Tokmak, its initial objective. No plan survives first contact with the enemy and everyone has a plan until they get punched in the face. Officers also have a tendency to fight the last war. These timeless tragedies are all things the war has taught the world yet again. What else has it taught us? The fog of war is as potent as ever, but it parts in a few ways, and behind the mist, some things seem to stand out, at least in outline. To see all the linked sources, you can open the document in Google Drive as well: https://lnkd.in/ecGPRN8n

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.

My latest for Foreign Policy on Ukraine's military industrial base. The challenge of the industry is not how to innovate but how to scale up production given skilled labor shortages, supply chain bottlenecks, corruption, and Russian attacks. One possible way forward is to expand Ukraine’s military industrial base on NATO territory using joint ventures with Western companies underwritten by a dedicated investment fund. That would not only give Ukraine a steady supply of NATO-standard weapons immune to political whims in the West but also send a strong signal to Moscow that it may not have time—and Western fickleness—on its side after all.