Why don't you stop accusing everyone of exaggerating what you say and learn to fucking read first.However we also have posters like Marduk, who seem to want to go all Winged Hussars on the situation, or for the US to do it in the stead as part of NATO.
Where did i say that?
Here?
Or maybye here?The question is here what NATO should do if Russia attacks Ukraine.
And what i explained is, that if Russia does that, and USA would go "lol don't care, your problem you stoopid euros", that would raise question of what the hell is NATO even for.
There are also things NATO can do short of sending divisions to Kiev, which is probably the kind of option that will be opted for. Like the recent news of AT weapon shipments to Ukraine.
The objective is to make sure that if Russia does attack Ukraine, whether they win or lose, they have reasons to wonder if it was worth the price, and doubt if they can afford more adventures like that, as that is what NATO needs to prevent.
Or here?I'm not sure how is that going to work when Biden said no troops.
Not sure who in NATO would be insistent enough to change that either.
Not Germans, not French, that's for sure. Eastern flank countries, welp, if they wanted to they could easily send their own forces as reinforcements to Ukraine and no one could stop them, setting a kind of political tripwire, but they aren't doing that.
Here's the problem though, Ukraine is many times bigger than Chechenya. Russia is not America, it cannot afford to spend trillions USD on a 20 year peacekeeping and rebuilding operation. It would drive them bankrupt. They already are thin on cash, and they would get hit with sanctions on top of it. So the trick is for the west to simply arrange it so that the occupation is costly to Russia, in money and PR terms, they don't have much reserve in either. Their tip of the spear forces get stuck in Ukraine for good, demoralized and possibly suffering attrition from the unpleasantness of COIN warfare, military and rebuilding budget doing whatever possible, while its still 30-60% short of what is needed. At the price of Ukraine, which 2 decades ago Russia still solidly ruled by proxy, Russian conventional military is practically neutralized in regard to threatening other countries in the region with similar actions, because they can't let go of Ukraine, yet they also can't afford the investment to make it self-sustaining.
That would be a strategic victory for NATO.