[Goose]

Agreed, Goose. 

I am NOT a fan of making the list of countries I-will-send-our-sons-to-die-for overly large.  Western Europe yes.  Baltics and a bunch of ex-Soviet satellite states?  Not so much.

Agree, but it's too late. These countries are already in NATO and the idea of having "second class" NATO members just isn't viable. We and the other NATO members are "on the hook" and for NATO to continue its role in the world the US is going to have to lobby like mad, beg, plead, threaten, whatever to convince everybody (including doubters in the US) that we must uphold our obligations. No way to walk it back now.

There were arguably compelling political justifications for admitting the ex-Soviet satellite states. It would have been better for all concerned if the politicians making those decisions took seriously the increased risk and obligation their nations were assuming and maintained a military posture sufficient to preclude anybody being willing to test the system. Unfortunately, they did the opposite, including in the USA.

On the other hand, providing Ukraine the materiel to stave off Russia is very much in our interest and at this point the Russian Bear has been exposed as more growl than claw and I'm very pleased with that.

Me too! It amazes me that anybody could believe otherwise. Another important point is that lots of the supposed "expense" of this effort is an accounting quirk, not reality. Much of the material is surplus to requirements and/or obsolete. It cost us a lot when we bought it, but it's actual value is much less because we don't intend to use it and will eventually scrap it. What we hear about is the "cost", not the "present value". No actual cash is being spent that we will have to borrow money to pay (other than transportation costs).

So let's support Ukraine, let's reduce Russian land forces, and make them less hungry for a land war on their Western front.  Let's not create alliances we don't whole heartedly support or make promises we do not plan to back.

/Leftcoast

Agree. It is important for everybody to be realistic about what the various NATO nations are actually willing and able to do. IMO Ukraine would actually be better off with bilateral treaties with countries that can actually help them and that will probably actually do so. For them, an Israel-like relationship to the US would be superior to being a NATO member IMO. Pretty sure their public wouldn't agree though, because they don't realize at the end of the day NATO members don't really have an obligation to act.

[Goose]

Agreed, Goose. 

I am NOT a fan of making the list of countries I-will-send-our-sons-to-die-for overly large.  Western Europe yes.  Baltics and a bunch of ex-Soviet satellite states?  Not so much.

Agree, but it's too late. These countries are already in NATO and the idea of having "second class" NATO members just isn't viable. We and the other NATO members are "on the hook" and for NATO to continue its role in the world the US is going to have to lobby like mad, beg, plead, threaten, whatever to convince everybody (including doubters in the US) that we must uphold our obligations. No way to walk it back now.

There were arguably compelling political justifications for admitting the ex-Soviet satellite states. It would have been better for all concerned if the politicians making those decisions took seriously the increased risk and obligation their nations were assuming and maintained a military posture sufficient to preclude anybody being willing to test the system. Unfortunately, they did the opposite, including in the USA.

On the other hand, providing Ukraine the materiel to stave off Russia is very much in our interest and at this point the Russian Bear has been exposed as more growl than claw and I'm very pleased with that.

Me too! It amazes me that anybody could believe otherwise. Another important point is that lots of the supposed "expense" of this effort is an accounting quirk, not reality. Much of the material is surplus to requirements and/or obsolete. It cost us a lot when we bought it, but it's actual value is much less because we don't intend to use it and will eventually scrap it. What we hear about is the "cost", not the "present value". No actual cash is being spent that we will have to borrow money to pay (other than transportation costs).

So let's support Ukraine, let's reduce Russian land forces, and make them less hungry for a land war on their Western front.  Let's not create alliances we don't whole heartedly support or make promises we do not plan to back.

/Leftcoast

Agree. It is important for everybody to be realistic about what the various NATO nations are actually willing and able to do. IMO Ukraine would actually be better off with bilateral treaties with countries that can actually help them and that will probably actually do so. For them, an Israel-like relationship to the US would be superior to being a NATO member IMO. Pretty sure their public wouldn't agree though, because they don't realize at the end of the day NATO members don't really have an obligation to act.