[Goose]

Germane to present discussion-

https://twitter.com/Faytuks/status/17082...10230?s=20

Whether any of the that will happen, we'll see. Certainly a lot of escalation concerns would be present, but it is interesting that it's being newly publicly discussed.

I don't think there is any way this can happen. I am pretty sure the US is on the phone right now making sure the UK isn't seriously considering it. It is a bad idea because the benefit to risk ratio is very unfavorable. A more beneficial action would be to deploy some NATO maintainers and instructors to Ukraine to help with problems fixing NATO equipment. That on-site presence could greatly increase availability. Moving training from UK to Ukraine just saves the time to move the trainees to and from the UK. Not an important benefit.

On the topic of Ukraine in NATO, I think it may be a necessary part of any durable peace. Many of NATO's members are already asking for this, particularly the Eastern flank. 

Many factions do indeed support this idea. IMO it isn't a good idea. NATO already has too many centrifugal force components inhibiting it from being a "reliable" deterrent. We don't need Ukraine added as another one. Also, in reality NATO can't provide a real strong military response without the US. A bilateral treaty eliminates any worries about week-kneed responses that could arise with NATO. IMO Ukraine would be much better off that way.

Unanimous support would be very tough though.

I would say impossible. I would even be worried about getting it through the US congress. It will take an explanation and convincing argument to both the congress and the public to make it happen. I haven't seen any such thing from any recent administration, so it is not a skill set easily reproduced.

[Goose]

Germane to present discussion-

https://twitter.com/Faytuks/status/17082...10230?s=20

Whether any of the that will happen, we'll see. Certainly a lot of escalation concerns would be present, but it is interesting that it's being newly publicly discussed.

I don't think there is any way this can happen. I am pretty sure the US is on the phone right now making sure the UK isn't seriously considering it. It is a bad idea because the benefit to risk ratio is very unfavorable. A more beneficial action would be to deploy some NATO maintainers and instructors to Ukraine to help with problems fixing NATO equipment. That on-site presence could greatly increase availability. Moving training from UK to Ukraine just saves the time to move the trainees to and from the UK. Not an important benefit.

On the topic of Ukraine in NATO, I think it may be a necessary part of any durable peace. Many of NATO's members are already asking for this, particularly the Eastern flank. 

Many factions do indeed support this idea. IMO it isn't a good idea. NATO already has too many centrifugal force components inhibiting it from being a "reliable" deterrent. We don't need Ukraine added as another one. Also, in reality NATO can't provide a real strong military response without the US. A bilateral treaty eliminates any worries about week-kneed responses that could arise with NATO. IMO Ukraine would be much better off that way.

Unanimous support would be very tough though.

I would say impossible. I would even be worried about getting it through the US congress. It will take an explanation and convincing argument to both the congress and the public to make it happen. I haven't seen any such thing from any recent administration, so it is not a skill set easily reproduced.