I started to post the exact same thing a little bit ago. But then I paused, as I remembered the NATO involvement in Kosovo. It’s a complicated problem. Russia is not Serbia, the stakes are far higher and I think I’m not in favor of it. A strict reading of Article 5 should forbid it. However if you could justify Kosovo, you could probably stretch the same reasoning to Ukraine.
I am willing to cut the Ukrainians some slack, because of the situation that they are facing. But the quotes you posted are simply not accurate. To say that NATO and/or the West is “doing nothing” is a far cry from the truth. Furthermore, even Ukrainians that hold government positions do not necessarily know the logistics issues that go into supply chains and troop movements. If we gave them every single thing that they’ve asked for, it would quite possibly end up hampering the war effort, because of all the behind-the-scenes issues that most non-military people don’t know about.
So awhile back we were hearing that Russian forces were literally out of fuel and food and their soldiers near mutiny; but the occupation of eastern and southern Ukraine continues. So has three months in the school of Hard Knocks shaken out the worst of Russian snafus and the Russians can continue fighting at their current level indefinitely?
They are focusing on a much smaller area much closer to their own territory, their supply issues should not be as pronounced.
Are they still losing armored vehicles at unreplaceable rates?
Pretty sure currently any rate is unreplaceable.
Early reporting was almost universally by and from the North, around Kyiv. Probably a large reason that a lot of the detailed news has quit is that the battle around Kyiv has stopped, the news agencies don’t want to send people past the city, and they don’t want to rely on the Ukrainian government for information, entirely. We never had good news from the Southeastern front.
But so, the idea that Russia’s lack of support for their trips and that the quality of their fighting was dismal may have been purely an issue of the Northern war. In the Southeast, Russia might have been better supplied and better manned.
You can’t necessarily infer from the lost territory what occurred in the successfully taken territory.
Why?
Article 5 says an attack on one is an attack on all.
It doesn’t say that’s the only time NATO is allowed to act. What prohibition do you see?
https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natolive/official_texts_17120.htm
It has been interpreted that way and not just by me. NATO was conceived as a defensive alliance and the only time use of force is discussed in that document is in the context of attack on a member. Now, granted it doesn’t explicitly say thou shalt not intervene militarily in non-NATO conflicts and NATO has in fact done so in the past. So it certainly could justify it similarly in this case. Like I said above, Kosovo is not so different which is why I replied to Walken_After_Midnight’s post like I did. NATO’s remit really is as wide as they want to argue it is. They could argue after internal consultation and a vote that Russia’s invasion of Ukraine is a humanitarian disaster and a threat to European stability and therefore they are compelled to step in.
However, I personally think it is a (small) stretch from what I consider a plain reading of the text. But NATO rightfully doesn’t give a crap what I think 
.
It would appear so.
Watching Javelins go up against T-62s, T-55s and T-34s would be like watching a sledgehammer smash a garden snail.
An interesting report on the BBC today from Narva in Estonia, NATO’s only border with Russia. A city that is mostly Russian-speaking. There is a steady stream of refugees from the Russian side - mostly Ukranians.
Yet some of those who have made it to the Estonian side are still critical of the West. At the volunteer centre, two elderly Ukrainian women from a village near Kharkiv eventually agree to speak to me in Russian as Katya interprets. They tell me they are grateful to the Russian soldiers who helped evacuate them to Belgorod on the Russian side of the border.
Younger people think differently - even those who call themselves Russian are furious with Putin for causing this mess
Who do you blame for this war, I ask them.
“It’s like a divorce,” answers Viktoria, cradling a small dog on her lap. “Because both sides are to blame. America is at fault as they should not have supplied weapons to Ukraine.”
And what if Ukraine ends up being divided into zones ruled by Russia on one side and the legitimate government in Kyiv on the other? Where would you choose to live?
“Zelensky should not be president, he is a drug addict,” answers Viktoria’s friend, echoing the party line put out by the Kremlin.
“We would go to live in the Russian zone, of course.”
Outside the centre another volunteer, Dennis, takes me aside to explain.
“It’s an age thing,” he says. “Even here in Narva a lot of the older people blame Nato and the West for this crisis. Younger people think differently. Even those who call themselves Russian are furious with Putin for causing this mess.”
NATO countries Latvia and Norway also have borders with Russia.
Also Poland and Lithuania, with the Kaliningrad Oblast.
I’ve seen several videos and news articles claiming Russia is in trouble in terms of troop manpower without some sort of general mobilization to replace losses. That may well be the case, but one of the signs the Russians are in trouble that some of these reports rely on, is citing the fact that they’ve hired private defense contractors to fight. I don’t see how that’s a sign of desperation. Heck, we used LOTS of private defense contractors in Iraq and Afghanistan. In fact, there were often more private contractors fighting than regulars. Using private contractors to fight in Ukraine makes perfect sense, as these troops are pretty much across the board going to have more combat experience and better morale than their regular forces. I don’t see their use as any kind of weakness. In fact, there’s reporting that the encirclement of Sevrodonetsk is being largely fought by Wagner infantry.
Libya in 2011 also eventually came under NATO command. So the organisation has already drifted somewhat from its original defensive alliance role to one of international policeman.
Operating under the NATO banner could complicate things, as Russia is already framing the Ukraine War as actually being a war between NATO and Russia. I think any sort of no-fly or no-sail mission might be better accomplished through a non-NATO coalition, as in the Gulf War, which would include non-NATO members, such as Australia and Japan.
I haven’t heard: why does Turkey object to Finland and Sweden joining NATO?
The reason I’ve heard cited publicly by the Turkish government is that Sweden and/or Finland are harboring Kurdish fugitives from Turkey, at least some of which have engaged in terroristic activities against Turkey in pursuit of Kurdish independence.
I’m not sure how valid that is, or to the extent that Turkey may be using this as a bargaining chip to gain some kind of concesssion from NATO or some European countries.
This. IIRC there’s even a few Kurdish members of parliament in Sweden and / or Finland.