50
Been thinking about the Ukraine war
(hexbear.net)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 17 Aug 2023
50 points (100.0% liked)
chapotraphouse
13509 readers
1483 users here now
Banned? DM Wmill to appeal.
No anti-nautilism posts. See: Eco-fascism Primer
Vaush posts go in the_dunk_tank
Dunk posts in general go in the_dunk_tank, not here
Don't post low-hanging fruit here after it gets removed from the_dunk_tank
founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
No doubt things have changed, but NATO rules technically prevent it - see the recent summit where they quietly stated Ukraine must improve their corruption problem, improve rule of law, increase democracy, etc and so forth, before being admitted - and NATO doesn't actually want to get into a land war with Russia. Tricking an unattached, non-NATO Ukraine into a war with Russia was always NATO's goal, and I kind of doubt Ukraine will ever be in NATO. Of course that doesn't prevent the US from plopping bases down (or mercenaries, or whatever).
Applied rigorously, half the member states couldn't join under NATO's own guidelines. Turkey isn't in the bloc because of its zealous commitment to rule of law. Its just the largest armed force on this side of the Atlantic and at a pivotal point of international trade.
I wouldn't even call it a trick, so much as a continuous series of minor provocations that escalated as western oligarchs balkinized the region. I suspect NATO leadership would have been happy enough with an "East/West Ukraine" split, had Russia gone with an "arming the moderate rebels" approach rather than a full scale invasion. As it stands today, that's most likely what we're going to get, just at orders of magnitude greater loss of life and demolition of valuable infrastructure.
One of the "nicers" things about Ukraine was that it already had a large active military and a sizable surplus of ground weapons. I don't think the folks in NATO anticipated how quickly Zelensky's commanders would just blow through all their reserves or how fast Ukrainian units would collapse under Russian air and sea power. While there's definitely a bunch of arms dealers who are salivating at the next requisition for bombs and guns, I suspect a fair number of NATO logistics folks are sweating bullets as they acknowledge what a modern continental or global war would actually mean relative to their productive capacity.
There's a real divide between the Money Guys and the Generals, between what generates the most revenue and what actually works on the battlefield. And NATO is, at its heart, a military operation. I don't know if the US really has the swag left to occupy Ukraine comparable to what they've done in the Balkins or Korea. Not after the shit show that was Iraq/Afghanistan.
The Americans are running out of juice.
Right, Turkey had something to offer. Ukraine hasn't got anything to offer but neo nazis and a bunch of hand-me-downs NATO already gave them. The IMF has already forced the question on selling off everything of any value, the Ukrainians with the financial means are gone and probably won't return. It doesn't benefit NATO to allow Ukraine to join, particularly since Ukraine already happily walked into the role of "artillery sponge". They did the thing NATO wanted and now they'll be discarded and left as a rump state.
It has a close proximity to Russia, the entire object of NATO's containment mission. And it has huge... tracks of land. Very pivotal to controlling North Africa, particularly as climate change destroys volume of arable land.
But that's only the first step. You still need a large armed presence to guarantee Ukraine's lands stay privatized. Otherwise, you're just dealing with a '79 Iranian Revolution or a Colonel Qaddafi running Libya. NATO gives the framework for installing bases in Ukraine and securing the bag.
I think in a situation where Ukraine didn't just have all of their male population run off or killed you would be right about having to worry about some kind of Ukrainian revolution, but I don't think that's a concern for NATO or the IMF now. The wealthy haven't been conscripted, and they're the ones who will benefit from the privatization scheme - and they're the ones who control what militia factions still exist. The proximity to Russia would be worthwhile if Ukraine didn't already provide all the access the west wants. As far as I can tell, NATO already has everything they want with no need to add further liability to their portfolio.
No. This war has Iran-Iraq'd their populations. It'll take a generation to recover.
They didn't, though. That was the whole conflict around Donetsk that pushed this conflict to a full invasion.
Idk. Western Media wants you to believe NATO is always and forever winning, but this war has exposed serious flaws across the whole continent.
The economic demands put on the European members have been enormous, and its biggest players don't appear nearly as loyal to the coalition as they were thirty years ago.
I was just wracking my brain for an aphorism and finally googled it because my grey matter failed me - this is a real "why buy the cow when you can get the milk for free" situation for NATO, in my opinion
I guess we'll see. I think we're going to see NATO all over Western Ukraine within another two or three years.
I look forward to the news mega coverage if it comes to pass!
Sure, but joining NATO isn't going to bring the Donbass or Crimea back into Ukrainian hands. Not only will they never get them back, they're going to have to officially, politically acknowledge that that is no longer Ukrainian territory if they want to join NATO. So there's still no benefit to having them join NATO for NATO.
C'mon, you know I know and agree with that. NATO didn't win this, but that doesn't mean Ukraine has anything to offer them that they don't already have. Actually allowing Ukraine to join NATO is nothing but a liability to NATO - that is why I'm staking my claim that it won't happen, at least not in the next decade.