I think it's very unlikely that this "NATO plan" is a reality. The fact of the matter is that there is zero readiness or even willingness in the Western population for the sacrifices that a unilateral attempt to impose a military force in Ukraine--peace-keepers or call it what you will--would entail.
I think it's very unlikely that this "NATO plan" is a reality. The fact of the matter is that there is zero readiness or even willingness in the Western population for the sacrifices that a unilateral attempt to impose a military force in Ukraine--peace-keepers or call it what you will--would entail.
There is a recrudescence of idle chatter in the West about troops to Ukraine, but as in the past, the question is, "How could it possibly work in practice?"
When I actually see the slightest real preparation for such a venture in NATO countries, then I'll get interested.
The alleged SVR report sounds largely propagandistic, if it exists at all:
>>"According to incoming information, the German military has already turned to the experience of the establishment of the occupation regime in Ukraine by the Nazi invaders during the Great Patriotic War. At the same time, the Bundeswehr concluded that the implementation of police functions would be impossible without sonderkommandos from Ukrainian nationalists. They will come up with a new name, but in fact they will be the same Bandera punishers."
Tensions are rising, and this kind of language seems intended to reinforce public support inside Russia.
No one asked the American people whether they wanted the US to go into Vietnam. But look what havoc ensued--and ultimately a withdrawal. And that was with a majority of the population actually in favor of fighting to win.
That kind of support doesn't exist in the US today--and certainly not in Europe. And the kind of humiliation that a much more resilient US was able to rebound from in the 1970s would be, after the recent Afghanistan fiasco, not something that western pols will likely be willing to risk. At least, that's my view.
NATO cannot wage a war in Ukraine without substantial popular support, as it would require massive retooling of militaries, economies, etc and the active support of the general population. Look what's happening in Romania right now.
Any of the weak western political pols who try to become "war leaders" are likely to be hounded out of their jobs sooner rather than later.
I don't think the West can hack an intervention. And I think that Western pols know that.
But what made them decide it wasn't worth it after they had decided it was worth it to go in in the first place?
I agree that Western leaders see the War on Russia as existential or something close to it. But I doubt that is enough to get 100,000 NATO troops into Ukraine and absorb the blowback that would emerge as soon as such a plan was actually let out of the bag which would have to be well before any troops got on the ground.
What made the elites turn back in Vietnam? There was little to gain.
As far as NATO, Goering had a certain practical experience in such matters.
"Why, of course, the people don't want war," Goering shrugged. "Why would some poor slob on a farm want to risk his life in a war when the best that he can get out of it is to come back to his farm in one piece. Naturally, the common people don't want war; neither in Russia nor in England nor in America, nor for that matter in Germany. That is understood. But, after all, it is the leaders of the country who determine the policy and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy or a fascist dictatorship or a Parliament or a Communist dictatorship."
"There is one difference," I pointed out. "In a democracy the people have some say in the matter through their elected representatives, and in the United States only Congress can declare wars."
"Oh, that is all well and good, but, voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same way in any country."
Reference Vietnam, that leaves the question of why, if there was little to gain, the US went in in the first place.
The fact remains that the US committed itself and then, due to internal instability, had to withdraw even though, as we know, Tet 68 was a tactical US victory. The same thing is true of both the Soviet and US fiascoes in Afghanistan.
The political class is powerful and, yes, it can get its way, despite popular opposition, in many cases. But not in all. And prosecuting a war with Russia in Ukraine with very low levels of public support from the get-go is a political trap few American pols will be willing to enter.
Moreover, without the US as the central power of a "peace-keeping" force in Ukraine, I can't imagine the whole thing even getting off the ground. Look at what's going on in Romania as we speak. Even if Georgescu is successfully kept out of power, Romania is a weak reed (just like it was for the Third Reich in WW II.)
Bottom line for me: If and when we actually see some discernible preparations for a NATO forced entry into Ukraine under the guise of peace-keeping, then I'll start to take it seriously.
I think it's very unlikely that this "NATO plan" is a reality. The fact of the matter is that there is zero readiness or even willingness in the Western population for the sacrifices that a unilateral attempt to impose a military force in Ukraine--peace-keepers or call it what you will--would entail.
There is a recrudescence of idle chatter in the West about troops to Ukraine, but as in the past, the question is, "How could it possibly work in practice?"
When I actually see the slightest real preparation for such a venture in NATO countries, then I'll get interested.
The alleged SVR report sounds largely propagandistic, if it exists at all:
>>"According to incoming information, the German military has already turned to the experience of the establishment of the occupation regime in Ukraine by the Nazi invaders during the Great Patriotic War. At the same time, the Bundeswehr concluded that the implementation of police functions would be impossible without sonderkommandos from Ukrainian nationalists. They will come up with a new name, but in fact they will be the same Bandera punishers."
Tensions are rising, and this kind of language seems intended to reinforce public support inside Russia.
Check this article out, I think it highlights the main areas of contention any peacekeeping force would experience.
NATO's Phantom Armies.
And the ghost of Carl von Clausewitz.
https://aurelien2022.substack.com/p/natos-phantom-armies
Thanks for recommending this article. It answers practically all the questions I had stemming from the Korybko one.
Thanks--that piece covers the basic issue well.
Nobody will ask western populations what they want
No one asked the American people whether they wanted the US to go into Vietnam. But look what havoc ensued--and ultimately a withdrawal. And that was with a majority of the population actually in favor of fighting to win.
That kind of support doesn't exist in the US today--and certainly not in Europe. And the kind of humiliation that a much more resilient US was able to rebound from in the 1970s would be, after the recent Afghanistan fiasco, not something that western pols will likely be willing to risk. At least, that's my view.
NATO cannot wage a war in Ukraine without substantial popular support, as it would require massive retooling of militaries, economies, etc and the active support of the general population. Look what's happening in Romania right now.
Any of the weak western political pols who try to become "war leaders" are likely to be hounded out of their jobs sooner rather than later.
I don't think the West can hack an intervention. And I think that Western pols know that.
The US could continue indefinitely in Vietnam. The US elites decided that it wasn't worth it..
NATO sees the War On Russia as more existential.
But what made them decide it wasn't worth it after they had decided it was worth it to go in in the first place?
I agree that Western leaders see the War on Russia as existential or something close to it. But I doubt that is enough to get 100,000 NATO troops into Ukraine and absorb the blowback that would emerge as soon as such a plan was actually let out of the bag which would have to be well before any troops got on the ground.
Obviously, we'll see how things turn out.
What made the elites turn back in Vietnam? There was little to gain.
As far as NATO, Goering had a certain practical experience in such matters.
"Why, of course, the people don't want war," Goering shrugged. "Why would some poor slob on a farm want to risk his life in a war when the best that he can get out of it is to come back to his farm in one piece. Naturally, the common people don't want war; neither in Russia nor in England nor in America, nor for that matter in Germany. That is understood. But, after all, it is the leaders of the country who determine the policy and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy or a fascist dictatorship or a Parliament or a Communist dictatorship."
"There is one difference," I pointed out. "In a democracy the people have some say in the matter through their elected representatives, and in the United States only Congress can declare wars."
"Oh, that is all well and good, but, voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same way in any country."
Reference Vietnam, that leaves the question of why, if there was little to gain, the US went in in the first place.
The fact remains that the US committed itself and then, due to internal instability, had to withdraw even though, as we know, Tet 68 was a tactical US victory. The same thing is true of both the Soviet and US fiascoes in Afghanistan.
The political class is powerful and, yes, it can get its way, despite popular opposition, in many cases. But not in all. And prosecuting a war with Russia in Ukraine with very low levels of public support from the get-go is a political trap few American pols will be willing to enter.
Moreover, without the US as the central power of a "peace-keeping" force in Ukraine, I can't imagine the whole thing even getting off the ground. Look at what's going on in Romania as we speak. Even if Georgescu is successfully kept out of power, Romania is a weak reed (just like it was for the Third Reich in WW II.)
Bottom line for me: If and when we actually see some discernible preparations for a NATO forced entry into Ukraine under the guise of peace-keeping, then I'll start to take it seriously.