this “russia’s evil invasion ushers in bigger world cohesion” narrative is barf-o-matic
So you think Finland joining NATO had zero connection to Russia’s invasion of Ukraine?
How can it be denying reality when NATO now has more member countries than at any other point in its history?
1 Like
Agreed, but I would also say it’s time for us to take a back seat in NATO to pivot to the Pacific. The European NATO countries are more than adequate to counter a now-weakened Russia, and America has been carrying that alliance for far too long
2 Likes
i said nothing of the sort. of course it did. doesn’t mean it strengthened NATO.
just made it more obviously collective.
say, what has NATO done lately in response to this dreaded invasion of a failed state vs another?
Yes, clearly it does. The reason for its existence is once again an ongoing current issue. Europe has been dealing with relentless Russian expansionism since the early 1800s, with a twenty year break between 1988-2008 being almost the only exception.
Helps America too. The deal with Europe and NATO has always been we protect you from the Bear and you in turn toe the line with us in other parts of the world. When it didn’t seem like Russia was a real threat anymore, the EU became less willing to do something for nothing. This is the best thing to happen to NATO since 1992.
4 Likes
what American interests are at stake?
thanks for your mini op ed
Yeah sure adding another country to NATO does not make it stronger. Okay you live in that reality.
NATO exists to protect NATO countries. Of course they have an interest in Ukraine remaining independent of Russia but they have no mandate to put troops on the ground to assist.
1 Like
unless you can clearly show how. i dont think that it does. they run to be under the umbrella
thank you for answering (partly anyway) the first question posed in this thread in the first post after the OP:
Thank you for asking questions you clearly don’t want an actual answer to or you wouldn’t say ■■■■ like this.
6 Likes
3 Likes
It’s made NATO stronger overall. And more relevant. It has also taught the West a few lessons.
-
Two new members. Expansion is good for the alliance.
-
Made the Europeans realize that the Cold War isn’t over just yet and Russia still makes brain dead decisions. Thus the need for collective security. Hopefully defense spending will increase in Europe overall so that the burden isn’t entirely on the US anymore.
-
Made everyone realize (this lesson should have never been discounted after Korea and WWII but it was) that a conventional war is hella expensive and drains weapons stocks quickly, especially artillery shells. Ramped up production is being done again for the first time since the 1980s. Good for future stockpiling.
-
Individual deployable small drones are KEY to any future conventional conflict. Ukraine (and to a lesser extent Russia) have made good use of off the shelf compact drones as artillery spotters, intelligence gatherers, and harassment tools. Most importantly, both Ukraine and Russia have innovated the tactics of employment; control needs to be on the squad level and individual artillery gun level. Instead of being controlled at the Company or Battalion level.
-
Modern SAMs, MANPADS, and antitank weaponry is even more lethal than everyone believed it was before the war and during the Cold War. Air dominance and armored warfare are going to need some tactical rethinking for the future. Those assets are not obsolete, but conventional tactics with them have proven to be flawed. The Ukrainians have been innovating in this area and are seeing success. Russia is incompetent as always, but who knows they may take some of those hard learned lessons to heart after they lose and improve themselves.
9 Likes
I wonder if any of the more orthodox base-Republicans want to hold forth on this.
(And not just to take a whizz)
1 Like
I don’t necessarily agree but after the Ukraine thing ends, Russia will be the first Great Power to take an L against a vassal state since the beginning of nation-states existing and that will require some recalibration.
2 Likes
That is certainly possible.
Do not ignore the data learned from weapon system use in actual combat conditions and data about Russian system in combat conditions like the patriot battery ability to intercept supersonic missiles, and all of the captured Russian equipment sent to the west like t90s in mint condition, Krasukha-4, and Khibiny-U ECW pods.
3 Likes
Or, if you want to follow another media stream,
Russia will triumph against unprovoked NATO aggression as once again, chessmaster Putin shows the weakness and decadence of liberal democracies in the west. 
It’s all choose-your-own-adventure now.
6 Likes
They did demonstrate they are very good at shooting widebody aircraft going in a straight line.
dare not answer huh?
me and my orthodox republican questions
meanwhile pump in billions
Most definitely.
Patriot sales are fixing to explode worldwide. Russia has owned the SAM market for a decade and a half now but new gen Patriot has proven to the world that it is actually superior than the S-400 and modernized S-300s.
Not to say the Russian SAMs are bad. In their conventional role against aircraft both the S-300 and S-400 have proven to be extremely lethal. Ukrainian S-300s and Russian S-300 and S-400s essentially shut down conventional air support for most of this war with neither side willing to risk their air assets after the devastating losses at the beginning of the war. But they proven incapable of dealing with HIMARS and have struggled against Ukraine’s subsonic drone assets.
But Patriot’s ability to shoot down super sonic cruise missiles easily and even threaten hypersonic missiles has made it very appealing for any future air defense network. Russian defense industry depends on foreign sales of their SAMs. It’s the one area where the Russian MIC had a marked sales advantage over any other weapons system worldwide. They’ve lost that now. That hurts their economy greatly.
3 Likes
