I wonder if bringing in NATO forces to Ukraine, not to fight at the front, but to free up reserves, training/supply/other non-combat units to serve on the front lines would work as the first step. It wouldn't bring NATO forces to direct contact with Russians, but help Ukraine squeeze out the last troops for the battlefield.
Putin would of course cry wolf with his nuclear weapons, but the provocation would still be so limited that it would be hard to justify such a major move.
I think NATO should directly engage with Russia within the boundaries of Ukraine, including Crimea.
Putin is demanding that everyone stand by the sidelines and allow him to abuse people. It’s like a schoolyard bully who threatens bystanders into tacitly supporting their actions through their inaction. China is watching this closely and it’s clear that if a bully wants to abuse someone all they need to do is make threats and the West will demonstrate cowardice and allow the bully to do whatever they please. The West should grow a pair and slap that shit down with extreme prejudice. If we don’t do it now it will just enable other bullies to test the meekness of the West.
The way to deal with someone who abuses people is to take their power away, not act meekly, which just empowers them.
NATO was defeated in Afghanistan and humiliated in northern Syria. Bringing in them into Ukraine not going to do anything other than further antagonize Russia. You can dig around what really happen during the last days of Kabul flee (hint, way worst than what reported on the mass media). To date, Russians weapon production are easily at 6x more than entire NATO combined (even if you add in Hungary and Turkey). With China supplying, that numbers unofficially up to 20x. The entire Ukraine population now is maybe about 1/5 of 2021. NATO is weak on battle field (remember their economies now out of cheap Russian oil and cheap Chinese green tech). The correct chess moves for NATO is to get Ukraine negotiate a peace truce with Russia. Had they ignore BoJo back then, at least 500K Ukrainians would be alive today and they get to keep their only route to sea. Now? Pretty much gameover for them. 2 generations of men gone. Best of the best lands 100% gone. Russians planning to seal off Ukraine as land-lock and willing to fight another 20 years at US-Afghan level to render Ukraine as a former country. Good luck. Got time read Sun Tzu. Winning battles on the nego table is always the better option than to render country-cide. American idealism of revolutionary independence war is very rare in history and not practical today especially world most powerful army as neighbor and enemy. Ukrainians failed to read that book and have to pay for the price deary.
Seems your employer gave you the wrong memo, it's the Russian who have lost 500k not Ukraine.
But I'll bite, Afghan withdrawal was always going to be messy so don't get your "the USA doesn't want you to know about this secret that only I know because it came to me in a dream".
>humiliated in Syria
USA is still there and most likely will be there for a while unless Trump gets elected.
>Russian weapons production is 6 bazillion times more than lichtenstein
And as they say it's not the quantity of weapons but the effectiveness of the weapon that is the determining factor, hence why NATO focus on quality as their doctrine is different than the USSR strategy that Russia is now forced to rely on.
>countries shouldn't have independence they should roll over to the bigger imperialist
Truly the peak thinking of 1800s geopolitics, I assume then that you're in favor of colonialism too?
And if he starts a nuclear war, what do you do then?
Direct engagement with NATO would almost surely guarantee massive loss to Putin, possibly leading to his fall. He would have very little to lose in that scenario, and so nuclear war would not be impossible.
