Russia - threadbanned users in OP

Not really. Defense treaties are just formalising what would happen anyway.

Monaco isn't defended because of a treaty with France. It is defended because France would suffer if it was taken over by a hostile force. Similarly for other countries, the larger military sees a benefit in having the smaller country protected. Nato was to establish bounds as to how far Russian aggression could go and the US saw this as an advantage for itself and obviously smaller countries saw the benefit of Russia not being able to attack them.

We can join Nato or not join Nato. The end result if Ireland was invaded would be the same. It would be unacceptable for the US/EU to have Atlantic shipping threatened by a large hostile army in Ireland and the UK would struggle to build adequate defenses.

That said I don't see an issue formalising it though obviously Ireland would need something other than a gdp target as it is a skewed number for us. However a defensive alliance is simply not a requirement for Ireland. We should put money into cyber which is easily the most likely avenue of attack and one it is hard for friendly nations to protect us from.

Lots of the Slava Ukraini brigade here (almost all banned or disappeared by now) called Scholz a Marxist Russia lover early on. Which was ridiculous even then. Germany was slow to get going but has really pulled its weight in the last year and a bit.

However I still think his use of words is interesting. It's always "Putin must not be allowed win", never "Putin must lose". Part of this very clear Western policy of going Ukraine enough so it can keep fighting, but never enough for real victory.

Wouldn't blame him for not wanting to leave his infant and head back to a war zone.

Hold your breath today everyone.

We're probably going to find out whether Senate Democrat Chuck Schumers plan to separate the border bill from the foreign aid bill will be palatable to the Republicans. If they choose to play games, obfuscate or just generally sniff the orange man's pants like they did yesterday it could be a very tough year for Ukraine in 2024.

Ah yeah. Man who fled the war for whatever reason, meets a woman and settles down, recently has a baby and then thinks, "ya know what, I'm gonna high tail it back to a war zone and maybe get myself killed"

One more.

Yes correct, This war is already a Strategic defeat for Russia. Bigger stronger NATO, hated by Ukrainians for many years to come, Shown to the world to be a kleptocratic dictatorship, their army shamed with war crimes and shown to be inept.

Well done Putin.

Ukraine and Russia will both lose the war. It is not realistic that either side comes out of this better than they started.

The real winners are the USA. Not a soldier killed, they got rid of or sold lots of their unneeded stock, lots of orders for US mil equipment to replace European countries old stock that was given to Ukraine, a bigger NATO, and Russian army gets massively depleted.

Not to mention field testing patriots and other weapons against Russian missiles, planes and vehicles. A roaring success for the US, without a doubt.

Do you ever stop?

New man in.

https://x.com/front_ukrainian/status/1755636687089066153?s=20

Nonsense.

NATO has just added Sweden and Finland to its ranks. It's more relevant than ever now, and stronger today thanks to the missteps of Putin.

Trump was President last time out, and despite all his bluster, the US remained in NATO. That is Trump for you, he talks an awful lot of shite.

Can you elaborate on this please, what will the Russian victory look like?

How so? Please do elaborate.

Really? An economy of $19.5 Trillion growing at approx 1.3% this year, has nothing going for it....?

Best not to look at Russia or China then if that is your benchmark.

Why are migrants coming to the EU, if it has nothing going for it?

We have heard all these proclamations of doom before.

Putin hasn't divided NATO. This is about NATO members supporting a non-NATO country, there are no rules for that.

If a NATO member wasn't getting support from it's other members you'd have a point, but that hasn't happened yet.

I'll agree with you that Europe needs to stand on it's own feet given the current happenings in the US.

I'm a bit torn about the Zaluzshni thing. On the one hand Zaluzshni is well liked by UAF, clearly competent and forward thinking. Where Sryskyi, it's reported that he isn't liked by the Ukrainians and is of old school Soviet stock.

On the other hand Syrskyi was in charge of the counteroffensive that retook most of kharkiv. He was also in charge of the defense of Bakhmut which he was criticized harshly for. However that little decision almost caused the collapse of the entire Russian federation. At any rate is very hard to know why Zelensky would fire such a well liked General at such a critical point. There are discussions and decisions that none of us internet fools are privy to.

Really gotta wait and see.

If he learned his military tactics in Russia and fought in the Soviet army then I wouldn't hold out much hope for genius insights to help Ukraine make any serious breakthrough in 2024

No need to worry. As he preaches NATO principles of decentralised command.

(7 months ago) From the Economist:

"Colleagues describe the general as ascetic, with an addiction to gym. He is said to be an obsessive planner. His operational flexibility differentiates his approach from that of Russian generals. He preaches NATO principles of decentralised command, learned during a stint in Brussels in 2013, where he met representatives of the alliance to discuss how to modernise Ukraine’s forces. He emphasises the importance of “hybrid warfare”. And he prioritises his troops’ morale: every day he reads messages from hundreds of soldiers and he regularly visits them in the field. “You must feel the spirit of the army,” he says."