[Hurlburt88]

I am with Mick and don't see Russia hoisting any "white flag" vis a vis Ukraine.  To me, the general results of this "war" are already settled, and the various sides just don't know how to officially end it.  
-  Russia wanted a buffer zone versus NATO
-  The US and NATO did not want Russia right up against NATO borders
-  Ukraine wants independence

So NATO bolstered Ukraine enough to get what "we" want, yet we are not willing to do everything needed to roll back Russia's current occupied territory.   So now we have stasis and tragedy until the 3 sides can figure out the right face-saving moves to end this thing for real.

[Hurlburt88]

I am with Mick and don't see Russia hoisting any "white flag" vis a vis Ukraine.  To me, the general results of this "war" are already settled, and the various sides just don't know how to officially end it.  
-  Russia wanted a buffer zone versus NATO
-  The US and NATO did not want Russia right up against NATO borders
-  Ukraine wants independence

So NATO bolstered Ukraine enough to get what "we" want, yet we are not willing to do everything needed to roll back Russia's current occupied territory.   So now we have stasis and tragedy until the 3 sides can figure out the right face-saving moves to end this thing for real.

[Goose]

I am with Mick and don't see Russia hoisting any "white flag" vis a vis Ukraine. To me, the general results of this "war" are already settled, and the various sides just don't know how to officially end it.

Nor do I. However,there are several possible outcomes that involve Russia leaving Ukraine because they can no longer afford to fight. One of these is that a "new" government in Russia will want to show economic benefit to the Russian people as soon as possible.  They can blame Putin for the mess, pull out of Ukraine, and renounce the "military action". That will free up lots of Russians to actually work in their economy, stop the bleeding in the military budget, and allow the lifting of Western sanctions. This outcome is a distinct possibility. While "hard liners" may want to continue/escalate the war, they may not have the money to do it. They may also not want to risk the political unrest full mobilization will require. The opposite approach has lots to recommend it.

Another very real possibility is that Russia or Ukraine collapses militarily, economically, or socially. IMO no way is this war "ended"  or "decided". Right now, Russia believes they can outlast Ukraine. They have more troops and more weapons. In the end, that will lead to Ukraine collapsing. There are reasons to believe that outcome is probable if a stalemate ensues. Ukraine knows this. They need to break the land bridge and at least pose a credible threat to Crimea. Ukraine believes that if the actually isolate Crimea and start to take it back (or, worst case. take it back), Russia will collapse. There are reasons to believe Ukraine is correct in this assessment. So, no, it isn't "decided". Both sides have a way ahead and either could prevail.

-  Russia wanted a buffer zone versus NATO
-  The US and NATO did not want Russia right up against NATO borders
-  Ukraine wants independence

So NATO bolstered Ukraine enough to get what "we" want, yet we are not willing to do everything needed to roll back Russia's current occupied territory.   So now we have stasis and tragedy until the 3 sides can figure out the right face-saving moves to end this thing for real.

IMO NATO and the US aren't capable of executing such a strategy even if they wanted to do so. At the start of the war, the West assumed Ukraine was going to quickly lose. We were going to accept that, like it or not. We had no choice. Ukraine didn't collapse, so we decided to "help". We were (and are) unwilling to start a direct war with Russia. We also have to navigate the political issues in the US and the EU. These issues were significant to start with and getting worse. Both Russia and Ukraine know this. The US can't simply "provide what is necessary" immediately and directly because neither the EU nor the US Congress would sit still for it.
Also, in any war, how does one know what is "necessary"? Ukraine is "all in". It has to be. Russia is not. They have military resources they are not using in Ukraine. The West is even less "all in". There are lots of moves that can be made by both Russia and the West. Ukraine is slowly but surely executing it's "game plan". It is anything but stasis. IMO the West would be perfectly happy if Ukraine wins outright in Crimea and Russia collapses. The West however wants to do it with as little risk to themselves as possible.

[Goose]

I am with Mick and don't see Russia hoisting any "white flag" vis a vis Ukraine. To me, the general results of this "war" are already settled, and the various sides just don't know how to officially end it.

Nor do I. However,there are several possible outcomes that involve Russia leaving Ukraine because they can no longer afford to fight. One of these is that a "new" government in Russia will want to show economic benefit to the Russian people as soon as possible.  They can blame Putin for the mess, pull out of Ukraine, and renounce the "military action". That will free up lots of Russians to actually work in their economy, stop the bleeding in the military budget, and allow the lifting of Western sanctions. This outcome is a distinct possibility. While "hard liners" may want to continue/escalate the war, they may not have the money to do it. They may also not want to risk the political unrest full mobilization will require. The opposite approach has lots to recommend it.

Another very real possibility is that Russia or Ukraine collapses militarily, economically, or socially. IMO no way is this war "ended"  or "decided". Right now, Russia believes they can outlast Ukraine. They have more troops and more weapons. In the end, that will lead to Ukraine collapsing. There are reasons to believe that outcome is probable if a stalemate ensues. Ukraine knows this. They need to break the land bridge and at least pose a credible threat to Crimea. Ukraine believes that if the actually isolate Crimea and start to take it back (or, worst case. take it back), Russia will collapse. There are reasons to believe Ukraine is correct in this assessment. So, no, it isn't "decided". Both sides have a way ahead and either could prevail.

-  Russia wanted a buffer zone versus NATO
-  The US and NATO did not want Russia right up against NATO borders
-  Ukraine wants independence

So NATO bolstered Ukraine enough to get what "we" want, yet we are not willing to do everything needed to roll back Russia's current occupied territory.   So now we have stasis and tragedy until the 3 sides can figure out the right face-saving moves to end this thing for real.

IMO NATO and the US aren't capable of executing such a strategy even if they wanted to do so. At the start of the war, the West assumed Ukraine was going to quickly lose. We were going to accept that, like it or not. We had no choice. Ukraine didn't collapse, so we decided to "help". We were (and are) unwilling to start a direct war with Russia. We also have to navigate the political issues in the US and the EU. These issues were significant to start with and getting worse. Both Russia and Ukraine know this. The US can't simply "provide what is necessary" immediately and directly because neither the EU nor the US Congress would sit still for it.
Also, in any war, how does one know what is "necessary"? Ukraine is "all in". It has to be. Russia is not. They have military resources they are not using in Ukraine. The West is even less "all in". There are lots of moves that can be made by both Russia and the West. Ukraine is slowly but surely executing it's "game plan". It is anything but stasis. IMO the West would be perfectly happy if Ukraine wins outright in Crimea and Russia collapses. The West however wants to do it with as little risk to themselves as possible.

[TrumpCard]

This thread is offensive to Russian-Americans.

[TrumpCard]

This thread is offensive to Russian-Americans.

[Mick]

By the looks of this article, the Russians have augmented their forces with 154,000 prisoners who were promised clemency if they served terms of between six, twelve and 18 months. Apparently, Russian figures show 420,000 prisoners at the beginning of the war, with a current prison population of 266,000.

The director of the Russia Behind Bars human rights organization states that Prigozhin took 50,000 prisoners into the Wagner group, promising clemency after six months of service if they survived. The Defense Ministry barred Wagner from further prison recruitment as of February 2023. She said incarceration is fairly constant, so there should be at least 400,000 prisoners. Therefore, the 104,000 must have gone into either in the Russian military itself or Redut (another paramiltiary group, apparently), and these prisoners have had a one-way ticket to the front with 18-month contracts. They receive no rotation or leave.

I wonder what the actual Russian casualty figure and current troop levels are?

Russia prison population plummets as convicts are sent to war (msn.com)

[Mick]

By the looks of this article, the Russians have augmented their forces with 154,000 prisoners who were promised clemency if they served terms of between six, twelve and 18 months. Apparently, Russian figures show 420,000 prisoners at the beginning of the war, with a current prison population of 266,000.

The director of the Russia Behind Bars human rights organization states that Prigozhin took 50,000 prisoners into the Wagner group, promising clemency after six months of service if they survived. The Defense Ministry barred Wagner from further prison recruitment as of February 2023. She said incarceration is fairly constant, so there should be at least 400,000 prisoners. Therefore, the 104,000 must have gone into either in the Russian military itself or Redut (another paramiltiary group, apparently), and these prisoners have had a one-way ticket to the front with 18-month contracts. They receive no rotation or leave.

I wonder what the actual Russian casualty figure and current troop levels are?

Russia prison population plummets as convicts are sent to war (msn.com)

[OutsiderFan]

The odds are increasing that those who lament the loss of the Israel thread will effectively get to talk about all things Hamas and Israel in this thread as Russia is now embracing Hamas publicly, because of course they are. The U.S. punching Iran's forces in the nose overnight certainly ups the ante.

So on the democracy and free market capitalism side we have NATO, Ukraine, Australia, South Korea, Japan, as the major powers.

On the autocracy side we have Russia, Iran, North Korea, and maybe China as the major powers. 

I put China here reluctantly because if you are China, do you really want to be on that side? I get it that they won't be on the democracy side, but FFS, how can you be a capitalist country with China's economic issues and piss off the other major capitalist countries? Perhaps there is some path for the western democracies to convince China to not ally with these other rogue nations, and be OK with them being communist, and to forget Taiwan?

I mean if China joins these three, the odds of World War III are very high, IMO. If we can convince China and India to stay neutral - which they would probably prefer - we will "only" have a regional war on our hands.

My question is how does Russia making friends with Hamas do anything to help Russia? I can see how it helps Hamas potentially, but what does it do for Russia? Their forces are already tied down in Ukraine, and they are already needing to borrow from North Korea. I can see Hamas asking Russia to help with online propaganda to stir up anti-Israel sentiment that creates more willing fighters to attack Israel while it is focused on Gaza.

[OutsiderFan]

The odds are increasing that those who lament the loss of the Israel thread will effectively get to talk about all things Hamas and Israel in this thread as Russia is now embracing Hamas publicly, because of course they are. The U.S. punching Iran's forces in the nose overnight certainly ups the ante.

So on the democracy and free market capitalism side we have NATO, Ukraine, Australia, South Korea, Japan, as the major powers.

On the autocracy side we have Russia, Iran, North Korea, and maybe China as the major powers. 

I put China here reluctantly because if you are China, do you really want to be on that side? I get it that they won't be on the democracy side, but FFS, how can you be a capitalist country with China's economic issues and piss off the other major capitalist countries? Perhaps there is some path for the western democracies to convince China to not ally with these other rogue nations, and be OK with them being communist, and to forget Taiwan?

I mean if China joins these three, the odds of World War III are very high, IMO. If we can convince China and India to stay neutral - which they would probably prefer - we will "only" have a regional war on our hands.

My question is how does Russia making friends with Hamas do anything to help Russia? I can see how it helps Hamas potentially, but what does it do for Russia? Their forces are already tied down in Ukraine, and they are already needing to borrow from North Korea. I can see Hamas asking Russia to help with online propaganda to stir up anti-Israel sentiment that creates more willing fighters to attack Israel while it is focused on Gaza.

[GK3]

The odds are increasing that those who lament the loss of the Israel thread will effectively get to talk about all things Hamas and Israel in this thread as Russia is now embracing Hamas publicly, because of course they are. The U.S. punching Iran's forces in the nose overnight certainly ups the ante.

So on the democracy and free market capitalism side we have NATO, Ukraine, Australia, South Korea, Japan, as the major powers.

On the autocracy side we have Russia, Iran, North Korea, and maybe China as the major powers. 

I put China here reluctantly because if you are China, do you really want to be on that side? I get it that they won't be on the democracy side, but FFS, how can you be a capitalist country with China's economic issues and piss off the other major capitalist countries? Perhaps there is some path for the western democracies to convince China to not ally with these other rogue nations, and be OK with them being communist, and to forget Taiwan?

I mean if China joins these three, the odds of World War III are very high, IMO. If we can convince China and India to stay neutral - which they would probably prefer - we will "only" have a regional war on our hands.

My question is how does Russia making friends with Hamas do anything to help Russia? I can see how it helps Hamas potentially, but what does it do for Russia? Their forces are already tied down in Ukraine, and they are already needing to borrow from North Korea. I can see Hamas asking Russia to help with online propaganda to stir up anti-Israel sentiment that creates more willing fighters to attack Israel while it is focused on Gaza.

A good question.  Understanding what Putin thinks is good for Russia and why is difficult.  A country with a vast landmass populated by a declining  and aging population where there is increasingly more women than men seems less and less like a world power. It is, however, the source of vast amounts of raw materials many other countries need.   The war is making the demographic issue worse.  Plus Russia itself has had its issues with terrorism.  One party's answer to your question is here, how good an answer it is, who knows.
https://carnegieendowment.org/politika/9...0terrorism.

[GK3]

The odds are increasing that those who lament the loss of the Israel thread will effectively get to talk about all things Hamas and Israel in this thread as Russia is now embracing Hamas publicly, because of course they are. The U.S. punching Iran's forces in the nose overnight certainly ups the ante.

So on the democracy and free market capitalism side we have NATO, Ukraine, Australia, South Korea, Japan, as the major powers.

On the autocracy side we have Russia, Iran, North Korea, and maybe China as the major powers. 

I put China here reluctantly because if you are China, do you really want to be on that side? I get it that they won't be on the democracy side, but FFS, how can you be a capitalist country with China's economic issues and piss off the other major capitalist countries? Perhaps there is some path for the western democracies to convince China to not ally with these other rogue nations, and be OK with them being communist, and to forget Taiwan?

I mean if China joins these three, the odds of World War III are very high, IMO. If we can convince China and India to stay neutral - which they would probably prefer - we will "only" have a regional war on our hands.

My question is how does Russia making friends with Hamas do anything to help Russia? I can see how it helps Hamas potentially, but what does it do for Russia? Their forces are already tied down in Ukraine, and they are already needing to borrow from North Korea. I can see Hamas asking Russia to help with online propaganda to stir up anti-Israel sentiment that creates more willing fighters to attack Israel while it is focused on Gaza.

A good question.  Understanding what Putin thinks is good for Russia and why is difficult.  A country with a vast landmass populated by a declining  and aging population where there is increasingly more women than men seems less and less like a world power. It is, however, the source of vast amounts of raw materials many other countries need.   The war is making the demographic issue worse.  Plus Russia itself has had its issues with terrorism.  One party's answer to your question is here, how good an answer it is, who knows.
https://carnegieendowment.org/politika/9...0terrorism.

[Goose]

A good question.  Understanding what Putin thinks is good for Russia and why is difficult.  A country with a vast landmass populated by a declining  and aging population where there is increasingly more women than men seems less and less like a world power. It is, however, the source of vast amounts of raw materials many other countries need.   The war is making the demographic issue worse.  Plus Russia itself has had its issues with terrorism.  One party's answer to your question is here, how good an answer it is, who knows.
https://carnegieendowment.org/politika/9...0terrorism.

I think the article has a lot of it right. There is an element of "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" involved, plus Russia's desire to be a "player" in the middle east. One thing that is "new" to this situation is that Russia is getting equipment (drones at a minimum) from Iran. In the past, Russia could ignore Iranian requests with impunity. Now they can't. It may be that if Iran asks Russia to support Hamas, despite the fact Russia wants to be the "big dog" in the area, it has to at least do some of what Iran wants. It is beholden to Iran to some degree and must act like it.

[Goose]

A good question.  Understanding what Putin thinks is good for Russia and why is difficult.  A country with a vast landmass populated by a declining  and aging population where there is increasingly more women than men seems less and less like a world power. It is, however, the source of vast amounts of raw materials many other countries need.   The war is making the demographic issue worse.  Plus Russia itself has had its issues with terrorism.  One party's answer to your question is here, how good an answer it is, who knows.
https://carnegieendowment.org/politika/9...0terrorism.

I think the article has a lot of it right. There is an element of "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" involved, plus Russia's desire to be a "player" in the middle east. One thing that is "new" to this situation is that Russia is getting equipment (drones at a minimum) from Iran. In the past, Russia could ignore Iranian requests with impunity. Now they can't. It may be that if Iran asks Russia to support Hamas, despite the fact Russia wants to be the "big dog" in the area, it has to at least do some of what Iran wants. It is beholden to Iran to some degree and must act like it.

[TrumpCard]

OF, you are of course right that global politics is all interconnected. IMHO, it is unwise to ban any of it. But, I don’t run the board, and I don’t really want “kicked off an internet message board” on my “resume.” So I’ll pretend I’m in Florida and I just won’t bring up the banned topic or use any of the forbidden words.  Honestly, this sort of absurd rule is familiar to me as a Jewish person. We have many rules that have absolutely nothing to do with the laws in the Torah. We have an expression that the rabbis interpreting the laws build a fence around them so that people don’t even get close to breaking them. And then sometimes we get a fence around a fence. That’s how corn syrup became a banned substance during a holiday when we’re not supposed to eat bread. As time goes on, I’m hopeful we will be able to participate in this message board to our content, without too many superfluous fences.

[TrumpCard]

OF, you are of course right that global politics is all interconnected. IMHO, it is unwise to ban any of it. But, I don’t run the board, and I don’t really want “kicked off an internet message board” on my “resume.” So I’ll pretend I’m in Florida and I just won’t bring up the banned topic or use any of the forbidden words.  Honestly, this sort of absurd rule is familiar to me as a Jewish person. We have many rules that have absolutely nothing to do with the laws in the Torah. We have an expression that the rabbis interpreting the laws build a fence around them so that people don’t even get close to breaking them. And then sometimes we get a fence around a fence. That’s how corn syrup became a banned substance during a holiday when we’re not supposed to eat bread. As time goes on, I’m hopeful we will be able to participate in this message board to our content, without too many superfluous fences.

[M T]

1698407771[/url]']
My question is how does Russia making friends with Hamas do anything to help Russia?

Do you not remember a year or two ago about the revelations of Russian campaigns to encourage disparate factions in the  US to fracture our society?  Even if Russia wasn’t in a hot war, they would support actions that inflame groups in the US against others. 

But even more urgently, Russia welcomes a hot war in the Mid East as a diversion for US opinions and politics. Sure enough, the Hamas invasion has driven the Russia invasion to the old news category. As a result, the US is less likely to continue supporting the defense against the Russian invasion. I believe I commented before how Hamas’s actions caused the BBC’s coverage of Ukraine to practically halt.

Russia is using our democracy against us - get the people thinking about something else and they’ll stop supporting what they’re distracted away from. 

Speaking of coverage, how many are aware of the actions of China against the Philipines?

[M T]

1698407771[/url]']
My question is how does Russia making friends with Hamas do anything to help Russia?

Do you not remember a year or two ago about the revelations of Russian campaigns to encourage disparate factions in the  US to fracture our society?  Even if Russia wasn’t in a hot war, they would support actions that inflame groups in the US against others. 

But even more urgently, Russia welcomes a hot war in the Mid East as a diversion for US opinions and politics. Sure enough, the Hamas invasion has driven the Russia invasion to the old news category. As a result, the US is less likely to continue supporting the defense against the Russian invasion. I believe I commented before how Hamas’s actions caused the BBC’s coverage of Ukraine to practically halt.

Russia is using our democracy against us - get the people thinking about something else and they’ll stop supporting what they’re distracted away from. 

Speaking of coverage, how many are aware of the actions of China against the Philipines?

[Goose]

https://www.yahoo.com/news/turkey-f-16-s...25779.html

All is not yet clear sailing. The F-16 issue is still unresolved, and IMO there is no guarantee it can get through the Senate. It would appear the "deal" is that once Sweden's ascension is approved in parliament, the US has to move on the F-16s. It won't yet be "official" as there are still signatures that need to be added. Erdoğan is no fool. He isn't going to "trust" anybody. That is one more reason the position that Erdoğan (and therefore Türkiye) regarding Hamas is troublesome. That could become a roadblock to the F-16 and therefor also to Sweden.

Hungary is still a bit of an enigma. At one point the government stated they would approve Sweden's membership if Türkiye did. It is very unclear that is still the case. It is also unknown what Hungary will accept as a bribe to approve Sweden's ascension. If it involves the EU, it is unclear that it can be delivered. This whole situation is very troublesome. It is difficult to imagine how any nation that was part of the Warsaw Pact could have a favorable view of Russia. Yet many people in Eastern Europe do indeed have such a view, and in Hungary they appear to be a majority.

[Goose]

https://www.yahoo.com/news/turkey-f-16-s...25779.html

All is not yet clear sailing. The F-16 issue is still unresolved, and IMO there is no guarantee it can get through the Senate. It would appear the "deal" is that once Sweden's ascension is approved in parliament, the US has to move on the F-16s. It won't yet be "official" as there are still signatures that need to be added. Erdoğan is no fool. He isn't going to "trust" anybody. That is one more reason the position that Erdoğan (and therefore Türkiye) regarding Hamas is troublesome. That could become a roadblock to the F-16 and therefor also to Sweden.

Hungary is still a bit of an enigma. At one point the government stated they would approve Sweden's membership if Türkiye did. It is very unclear that is still the case. It is also unknown what Hungary will accept as a bribe to approve Sweden's ascension. If it involves the EU, it is unclear that it can be delivered. This whole situation is very troublesome. It is difficult to imagine how any nation that was part of the Warsaw Pact could have a favorable view of Russia. Yet many people in Eastern Europe do indeed have such a view, and in Hungary they appear to be a majority.

[OutsiderFan]

I know people here won't like this, but the EU and NATO should kick Hungary out.

Orban is anti-democracy. He's on the wrong team. He should be in league with Russia.

[OutsiderFan]

I know people here won't like this, but the EU and NATO should kick Hungary out.

Orban is anti-democracy. He's on the wrong team. He should be in league with Russia.

[TrumpCard]

I know people here won't like this, but the EU and NATO should kick Hungary out.

Orban is anti-democracy. He's on the wrong team. He should be in league with Russia.

Check out Freedom House's country reports for Freedom in the World.
Turkey's rating, for example, is far below Hungary's:
https://freedomhouse.org/country/turkey/...world/2023
https://freedomhouse.org/country/hungary...world/2023

If NATO is going to kick out countries for being anti-democratic, then NATO also should kick out Turkey and probably some Balkan states too.

NATO, however, needs these countries as members more than it needs unanimity most of the time.  Having lots of countries in the alliance increases the alliance's deterrent value.  The key value of the alliance is deterring an attack that every member of the alliance would abhor, regardless of the political bent of each county's government.

[TrumpCard]

I know people here won't like this, but the EU and NATO should kick Hungary out.

Orban is anti-democracy. He's on the wrong team. He should be in league with Russia.

Check out Freedom House's country reports for Freedom in the World.
Turkey's rating, for example, is far below Hungary's:
https://freedomhouse.org/country/turkey/...world/2023
https://freedomhouse.org/country/hungary...world/2023

If NATO is going to kick out countries for being anti-democratic, then NATO also should kick out Turkey and probably some Balkan states too.

NATO, however, needs these countries as members more than it needs unanimity most of the time.  Having lots of countries in the alliance increases the alliance's deterrent value.  The key value of the alliance is deterring an attack that every member of the alliance would abhor, regardless of the political bent of each county's government.

[Goose]

Check out Freedom House's country reports for Freedom in the World.
Turkey's rating, for example, is far below Hungary's:
https://freedomhouse.org/country/turkey/...world/2023
https://freedomhouse.org/country/hungary...world/2023

If NATO is going to kick out countries for being anti-democratic, then NATO also should kick out Turkey and probably some Balkan states too.

Agree with you there. However, AFAIK there is no mechanism to "kick out" members of the Alliance. Clearly, many members have not lived up to spending plans and military strength requirements established by NATO. They are all still there. Türkiye has always had issues with human rights and political freedom, from the day they were admitted. Türkiye is arguably worse today, but they were never "good".

NATO, however, needs these countries as members more than it needs unanimity most of the time.  Having lots of countries in the alliance increases the alliance's deterrent value.  The key value of the alliance is deterring an attack that every member of the alliance would abhor, regardless of the political bent of each county's government.

The above is arguable. The way Article 5 works allows member countries to do absolutely nothing in response to it's invocation if they so chose. In the event of war, lack of "unanimity" can lead to a disastrously feeble response.

It is definitely arguable that the Balkan states and some of the former Warsaw Pact states deter nobody. They are militarily weak and contribute little to NATO's ability to defend against aggression. They do however greatly increase the probability that NATO will have to defend them due to their military weakness (and in some cases their aggressive tendencies). Obviously, NATO is a good deal for these nations, as they at least in theory have "collective defense" available to them. The US supported these nations NATO membership because we feared their weakness might force them to realign with Russia. Many of the European nations had to be dragged along to support these memberships. In point of fact, these nations don't much care what happens to Bulgeria (for example) and regard the Baltics as lost causes from day one. They don't want Russia to invade these nations, but it is uncertain they "abhor" it enough to fight. Some of other states actually would abhor it (because it is too close to them for comfort) but are military ciphers and can't really do anything.

All that doesn't really matter now, except to the degree it affects NATO's strategy. We are stuck with the countries that are in NATO and have to live with it.

[Goose]

Check out Freedom House's country reports for Freedom in the World.
Turkey's rating, for example, is far below Hungary's:
https://freedomhouse.org/country/turkey/...world/2023
https://freedomhouse.org/country/hungary...world/2023

If NATO is going to kick out countries for being anti-democratic, then NATO also should kick out Turkey and probably some Balkan states too.

Agree with you there. However, AFAIK there is no mechanism to "kick out" members of the Alliance. Clearly, many members have not lived up to spending plans and military strength requirements established by NATO. They are all still there. Türkiye has always had issues with human rights and political freedom, from the day they were admitted. Türkiye is arguably worse today, but they were never "good".

NATO, however, needs these countries as members more than it needs unanimity most of the time.  Having lots of countries in the alliance increases the alliance's deterrent value.  The key value of the alliance is deterring an attack that every member of the alliance would abhor, regardless of the political bent of each county's government.

The above is arguable. The way Article 5 works allows member countries to do absolutely nothing in response to it's invocation if they so chose. In the event of war, lack of "unanimity" can lead to a disastrously feeble response.

It is definitely arguable that the Balkan states and some of the former Warsaw Pact states deter nobody. They are militarily weak and contribute little to NATO's ability to defend against aggression. They do however greatly increase the probability that NATO will have to defend them due to their military weakness (and in some cases their aggressive tendencies). Obviously, NATO is a good deal for these nations, as they at least in theory have "collective defense" available to them. The US supported these nations NATO membership because we feared their weakness might force them to realign with Russia. Many of the European nations had to be dragged along to support these memberships. In point of fact, these nations don't much care what happens to Bulgeria (for example) and regard the Baltics as lost causes from day one. They don't want Russia to invade these nations, but it is uncertain they "abhor" it enough to fight. Some of other states actually would abhor it (because it is too close to them for comfort) but are military ciphers and can't really do anything.

All that doesn't really matter now, except to the degree it affects NATO's strategy. We are stuck with the countries that are in NATO and have to live with it.

[TrumpCard]

In point of fact, these nations don't much care what happens to Bulgeria (for example) and regard the Baltics as lost causes from day one. 

I understand that Russia is a large country with a significant military.  Yet nothing I've seen in the Ukraine war leads me to believe that Russia would dare invade a NATO country, let alone that Russia would take said NATO county on Day 1.

[TrumpCard]

In point of fact, these nations don't much care what happens to Bulgeria (for example) and regard the Baltics as lost causes from day one. 

I understand that Russia is a large country with a significant military.  Yet nothing I've seen in the Ukraine war leads me to believe that Russia would dare invade a NATO country, let alone that Russia would take said NATO county on Day 1.

[Goose]

In point of fact, these nations don't much care what happens to Bulgeria (for example) and regard the Baltics as lost causes from day one. 

I understand that Russia is a large country with a significant military.  Yet nothing I've seen in the Ukraine war leads me to believe that Russia would dare invade a NATO country, let alone that Russia would take said NATO county on Day 1.

FWIW, Russia could probably take Latvia in 24 hours. This is not because Latvia wouldn't fight hard, but the country is just too small. It has no strategic depth. Obviously, in "real life" Russia would have to bring forward lots of troops and it wouldn't be a surprise. NATO air would probably prevent such a quick victory. However, I can assure you that NATO most definitely does NOT want to find out how it would go. The tactical situation would be absolutely horrible.

You are correct that right now Russia doesn't dare invade a NATO country such as Romania or Bulgaria because Russia believes 1) the US would fight, and 2) if the US fights, the UK would too. Other NATO countries may not fight (some would) but they probably would let the US transit their territories to do so. The minute the Kremlin believes it probable the US will not fight, the rest of NATO becomes pretty irrelevant. Unfortunately the scenario where Russia believes the US will not fight is easily imagined. This could lead to a major miscalculation on Russia's part or they could in fact be correct.

The US Military OTOH knows that the situation in such an event would be dire. It is difficult for the US to move anything to that part of the world. The transportation system isn't good to begin with, and the Russians would make it even worse by destroying parts of it. The US cannot fight a land war totally supplied from the air. We can't use the Black Sea (Montreaux Convention). If the nearby (mostly NATO) nations don't want to risk involvement (which cannot be ruled out. In fact, it is probable for some of them), we can't bring anything in by land.

So, today you are correct. In a few years, you may not be. My point here is that several of the NATO members are liabilities, not assets. The US military made this quite clear, but political necessity caused them to be overruled. At that time, nobody thought any wars in Europe were even possible anymore, so the fact it was militarily unsound didn't matter.

[Goose]

In point of fact, these nations don't much care what happens to Bulgeria (for example) and regard the Baltics as lost causes from day one. 

I understand that Russia is a large country with a significant military.  Yet nothing I've seen in the Ukraine war leads me to believe that Russia would dare invade a NATO country, let alone that Russia would take said NATO county on Day 1.

FWIW, Russia could probably take Latvia in 24 hours. This is not because Latvia wouldn't fight hard, but the country is just too small. It has no strategic depth. Obviously, in "real life" Russia would have to bring forward lots of troops and it wouldn't be a surprise. NATO air would probably prevent such a quick victory. However, I can assure you that NATO most definitely does NOT want to find out how it would go. The tactical situation would be absolutely horrible.

You are correct that right now Russia doesn't dare invade a NATO country such as Romania or Bulgaria because Russia believes 1) the US would fight, and 2) if the US fights, the UK would too. Other NATO countries may not fight (some would) but they probably would let the US transit their territories to do so. The minute the Kremlin believes it probable the US will not fight, the rest of NATO becomes pretty irrelevant. Unfortunately the scenario where Russia believes the US will not fight is easily imagined. This could lead to a major miscalculation on Russia's part or they could in fact be correct.

The US Military OTOH knows that the situation in such an event would be dire. It is difficult for the US to move anything to that part of the world. The transportation system isn't good to begin with, and the Russians would make it even worse by destroying parts of it. The US cannot fight a land war totally supplied from the air. We can't use the Black Sea (Montreaux Convention). If the nearby (mostly NATO) nations don't want to risk involvement (which cannot be ruled out. In fact, it is probable for some of them), we can't bring anything in by land.

So, today you are correct. In a few years, you may not be. My point here is that several of the NATO members are liabilities, not assets. The US military made this quite clear, but political necessity caused them to be overruled. At that time, nobody thought any wars in Europe were even possible anymore, so the fact it was militarily unsound didn't matter.

[GK3]

In point of fact, these nations don't much care what happens to Bulgeria (for example) and regard the Baltics as lost causes from day one. 

I understand that Russia is a large country with a significant military.  Yet nothing I've seen in the Ukraine war leads me to believe that Russia would dare invade a NATO country, let alone that Russia would take said NATO county on Day 1.

FWIW, Russia could probably take Latvia in 24 hours. This is not because Latvia wouldn't fight hard, but the country is just too small. It has no strategic depth. Obviously, in "real life" Russia would have to bring forward lots of troops and it wouldn't be a surprise. NATO air would probably prevent such a quick victory. However, I can assure you that NATO most definitely does NOT want to find out how it would go. The tactical situation would be absolutely horrible.

You are correct that right now Russia doesn't dare invade a NATO country such as Romania or Bulgaria because Russia believes 1) the US would fight, and 2) if the US fights, the UK would too. Other NATO countries may not fight (some would) but they probably would let the US transit their territories to do so. The minute the Kremlin believes it probable the US will not fight, the rest of NATO becomes pretty irrelevant. Unfortunately the scenario where Russia believes the US will not fight is easily imagined. This could lead to a major miscalculation on Russia's part or they could in fact be correct.

The US Military OTOH knows that the situation in such an event would be dire. It is difficult for the US to move anything to that part of the world. The transportation system isn't good to begin with, and the Russians would make it even worse by destroying parts of it. The US cannot fight a land war totally supplied from the air. We can't use the Black Sea (Montreaux Convention). If the nearby (mostly NATO) nations don't want to risk involvement (which cannot be ruled out. In fact, it is probable for some of them), we can't bring anything in by land.

So, today you are correct. In a few years, you may not be. My point here is that several of the NATO members are liabilities, not assets. The US military made this quite clear, but political necessity caused them to be overruled. At that time, nobody thought any wars in Europe were even possible anymore, so the fact it was militarily unsound didn't matter.

It seems improbable to me that Russia could put together enough trained manpower and higher end equipment to attempt to invade a NATO country.  Their reported hardware losses in the Ukraine seem to have been significant enough that putting together a large enough invading force would be impossible. I wonder if they can even put together enough resources to even come close to replacing their losses within any reasonable period of time.
In some ways they have done us a favor and helped fire up the NATO Military Industrial Complex so that it would be a bit easier for us to keep up with our hardware losses. Until they invaded Ukraine that might not have been possible. The one part of the Russian military that has escaped significant losses is their Air Force. If the F16's actually arrive at some point and their pilots are capable enough, their air arm might start taking some hits.  
I would also think that they would not Iran to tweak the tiger's tail too far as that might mark the end of their access to their drones. Perhaps they might be trying to influence just how far Iran and its allies carry things vis a vis Israel and the USA.  They need those drones.
With our elections coming up, maybe they are hoping to influence things sufficiently to reduce our support of Ukraine if Putin is playing a longer game. The What If's go on forever.

[GK3]

In point of fact, these nations don't much care what happens to Bulgeria (for example) and regard the Baltics as lost causes from day one. 

I understand that Russia is a large country with a significant military.  Yet nothing I've seen in the Ukraine war leads me to believe that Russia would dare invade a NATO country, let alone that Russia would take said NATO county on Day 1.

FWIW, Russia could probably take Latvia in 24 hours. This is not because Latvia wouldn't fight hard, but the country is just too small. It has no strategic depth. Obviously, in "real life" Russia would have to bring forward lots of troops and it wouldn't be a surprise. NATO air would probably prevent such a quick victory. However, I can assure you that NATO most definitely does NOT want to find out how it would go. The tactical situation would be absolutely horrible.

You are correct that right now Russia doesn't dare invade a NATO country such as Romania or Bulgaria because Russia believes 1) the US would fight, and 2) if the US fights, the UK would too. Other NATO countries may not fight (some would) but they probably would let the US transit their territories to do so. The minute the Kremlin believes it probable the US will not fight, the rest of NATO becomes pretty irrelevant. Unfortunately the scenario where Russia believes the US will not fight is easily imagined. This could lead to a major miscalculation on Russia's part or they could in fact be correct.

The US Military OTOH knows that the situation in such an event would be dire. It is difficult for the US to move anything to that part of the world. The transportation system isn't good to begin with, and the Russians would make it even worse by destroying parts of it. The US cannot fight a land war totally supplied from the air. We can't use the Black Sea (Montreaux Convention). If the nearby (mostly NATO) nations don't want to risk involvement (which cannot be ruled out. In fact, it is probable for some of them), we can't bring anything in by land.

So, today you are correct. In a few years, you may not be. My point here is that several of the NATO members are liabilities, not assets. The US military made this quite clear, but political necessity caused them to be overruled. At that time, nobody thought any wars in Europe were even possible anymore, so the fact it was militarily unsound didn't matter.

It seems improbable to me that Russia could put together enough trained manpower and higher end equipment to attempt to invade a NATO country.  Their reported hardware losses in the Ukraine seem to have been significant enough that putting together a large enough invading force would be impossible. I wonder if they can even put together enough resources to even come close to replacing their losses within any reasonable period of time.
In some ways they have done us a favor and helped fire up the NATO Military Industrial Complex so that it would be a bit easier for us to keep up with our hardware losses. Until they invaded Ukraine that might not have been possible. The one part of the Russian military that has escaped significant losses is their Air Force. If the F16's actually arrive at some point and their pilots are capable enough, their air arm might start taking some hits.  
I would also think that they would not Iran to tweak the tiger's tail too far as that might mark the end of their access to their drones. Perhaps they might be trying to influence just how far Iran and its allies carry things vis a vis Israel and the USA.  They need those drones.
With our elections coming up, maybe they are hoping to influence things sufficiently to reduce our support of Ukraine if Putin is playing a longer game. The What If's go on forever.

[Goose]

It seems improbable to me that Russia could put together enough trained manpower and higher end equipment to attempt to invade a NATO country.  Their reported hardware losses in the Ukraine seem to have been significant enough that putting together a large enough invading force would be impossible. I wonder if they can even put together enough resources to even come close to replacing their losses within any reasonable period of time.

You are indeed correct that Russia can't fight a major war in Ukraine while starting a war with NATO. It is however entirely possible for Russia to put together a "large enough" invading force. They have all kinds of major formations in the Russian far east  they could use. To do that however would require leaving the area basically defenseless, which they probably would not do. What Russia definitely could NOT do right now is logistically support another major "front". They don't have the LOC troops to do it. Russia has always assumed that they could improvise the LOC troops via the draft. Since they are unwilling to declare a full mobilization, they can't do that. Ukraine has taken all the "elasticity" out of Russian logistics. Different story if they did go to a full war footing.

Of course, this is academic, because the US would fight and Russia knows it. Such an action by Russia would also be so terminally destabilizing to the Baltic area that Russia couldn't risk it. NATO (and Poland unilaterally) would have to make a decision about Kaliningrad  Oblast. Conventional wisdom would say NATO can't fight in the Baltic States with Kaliningrad to the rear providing an anti-air threat and raining surface-to-surface missiles down on the rear of the NATO forces. Not to mention the minelayers that would be closing that part of the Baltic Sea. So, that becomes job 1. It would be a great big mess, that is for sure.

FWIW, Russia can't reasonably attack NATO in the south (Romania) because they don't have a big enough Navy in the Black Sea anymore to do it, and they have no other practical way to reach it. Finland is big enough Russia couldn't get a big enough force to capture it quickly (or at all once NATO intervened). They have tried that before. So, it is the Baltics or nothing if one is looking at a "quick" war against a NATO country :-).

In some ways they have done us a favor and helped fire up the NATO Military Industrial Complex so that it would be a bit easier for us to keep up with our hardware losses. Until they invaded Ukraine that might not have been possible.

I am not nearly so sanguine on this issue as you are. I have heard a lot of talk, but the basic fact is "business as usual". There have been actions taken to increase production of 155mm shells, but the vast majority of these actions involve planning for future expansion, not delivering more in 6 months or less. We haven't prioritized production of replacement missiles for the ATACMS that were sent to Ukraine. We are just waiting for the PrSM to come out of the pipeline as previously scheduled. I see no sense of urgency in the government or in the contractors.
In Europe, the UK is continuing with their significant downsizing (again) of their Army. The Ukraine situation was discussed, but it has changed nothing.  In Germany, Rheinmetall has the capacity to immediately increase production of 155mm ammunition, but the contracts have been "delayed". I just haven't seen any urgency for effective action and change.

The one part of the Russian military that has escaped significant losses is their Air Force. If the F16's actually arrive at some point and their pilots are capable enough, their air arm might start taking some hits.

Russian air has sat this war out to a large extent. How they get away with that I don't know, but they have. If the F-16s make it too dangerous for the Russian helicopter and ground attack planes to fly, they just won't (if things stay as they have been in this war).  A big victory for Ukraine if it goes that way. Not big Russian losses because they just say no :-).

I would also think that they would not Iran to tweak the tiger's tail too far as that might mark the end of their access to their drones. Perhaps they might be trying to influence just how far Iran and its allies carry things vis a vis Israel and the USA.  They need those drones.

With our elections coming up, maybe they are hoping to influence things sufficiently to reduce our support of Ukraine if Putin is playing a longer game.

Yes they do need those drones. Therefore they will do to a significant extent whatever Iran wants. Russia may register it's concerns with Iran, and they will be heard, because Iran wants lots of things from Russia. However, Iran is much more in the driver's seat than ever before. I don't think Russia is in any position to moderate Iran's actions and in fact may want to distract the US with another major war to deal with. In both a military and political sense, diverting US attention to the middle east is good for Russia. Russia may eventually have to worry about a resurgent Iran as a local competitor, but right now they are in no position to be choosy.

The What If's go on forever.

Yes, indeed they do.

[Goose]

It seems improbable to me that Russia could put together enough trained manpower and higher end equipment to attempt to invade a NATO country.  Their reported hardware losses in the Ukraine seem to have been significant enough that putting together a large enough invading force would be impossible. I wonder if they can even put together enough resources to even come close to replacing their losses within any reasonable period of time.

You are indeed correct that Russia can't fight a major war in Ukraine while starting a war with NATO. It is however entirely possible for Russia to put together a "large enough" invading force. They have all kinds of major formations in the Russian far east  they could use. To do that however would require leaving the area basically defenseless, which they probably would not do. What Russia definitely could NOT do right now is logistically support another major "front". They don't have the LOC troops to do it. Russia has always assumed that they could improvise the LOC troops via the draft. Since they are unwilling to declare a full mobilization, they can't do that. Ukraine has taken all the "elasticity" out of Russian logistics. Different story if they did go to a full war footing.

Of course, this is academic, because the US would fight and Russia knows it. Such an action by Russia would also be so terminally destabilizing to the Baltic area that Russia couldn't risk it. NATO (and Poland unilaterally) would have to make a decision about Kaliningrad  Oblast. Conventional wisdom would say NATO can't fight in the Baltic States with Kaliningrad to the rear providing an anti-air threat and raining surface-to-surface missiles down on the rear of the NATO forces. Not to mention the minelayers that would be closing that part of the Baltic Sea. So, that becomes job 1. It would be a great big mess, that is for sure.

FWIW, Russia can't reasonably attack NATO in the south (Romania) because they don't have a big enough Navy in the Black Sea anymore to do it, and they have no other practical way to reach it. Finland is big enough Russia couldn't get a big enough force to capture it quickly (or at all once NATO intervened). They have tried that before. So, it is the Baltics or nothing if one is looking at a "quick" war against a NATO country :-).

In some ways they have done us a favor and helped fire up the NATO Military Industrial Complex so that it would be a bit easier for us to keep up with our hardware losses. Until they invaded Ukraine that might not have been possible.

I am not nearly so sanguine on this issue as you are. I have heard a lot of talk, but the basic fact is "business as usual". There have been actions taken to increase production of 155mm shells, but the vast majority of these actions involve planning for future expansion, not delivering more in 6 months or less. We haven't prioritized production of replacement missiles for the ATACMS that were sent to Ukraine. We are just waiting for the PrSM to come out of the pipeline as previously scheduled. I see no sense of urgency in the government or in the contractors.
In Europe, the UK is continuing with their significant downsizing (again) of their Army. The Ukraine situation was discussed, but it has changed nothing.  In Germany, Rheinmetall has the capacity to immediately increase production of 155mm ammunition, but the contracts have been "delayed". I just haven't seen any urgency for effective action and change.

The one part of the Russian military that has escaped significant losses is their Air Force. If the F16's actually arrive at some point and their pilots are capable enough, their air arm might start taking some hits.

Russian air has sat this war out to a large extent. How they get away with that I don't know, but they have. If the F-16s make it too dangerous for the Russian helicopter and ground attack planes to fly, they just won't (if things stay as they have been in this war).  A big victory for Ukraine if it goes that way. Not big Russian losses because they just say no :-).

I would also think that they would not Iran to tweak the tiger's tail too far as that might mark the end of their access to their drones. Perhaps they might be trying to influence just how far Iran and its allies carry things vis a vis Israel and the USA.  They need those drones.

With our elections coming up, maybe they are hoping to influence things sufficiently to reduce our support of Ukraine if Putin is playing a longer game.

Yes they do need those drones. Therefore they will do to a significant extent whatever Iran wants. Russia may register it's concerns with Iran, and they will be heard, because Iran wants lots of things from Russia. However, Iran is much more in the driver's seat than ever before. I don't think Russia is in any position to moderate Iran's actions and in fact may want to distract the US with another major war to deal with. In both a military and political sense, diverting US attention to the middle east is good for Russia. Russia may eventually have to worry about a resurgent Iran as a local competitor, but right now they are in no position to be choosy.

The What If's go on forever.

Yes, indeed they do.

[GK3]

It seems improbable to me that Russia could put together enough trained manpower and higher end equipment to attempt to invade a NATO country.  Their reported hardware losses in the Ukraine seem to have been significant enough that putting together a large enough invading force would be impossible. I wonder if they can even put together enough resources to even come close to replacing their losses within any reasonable period of time.

You are indeed correct that Russia can't fight a major war in Ukraine while starting a war with NATO. It is however entirely possible for Russia to put together a "large enough" invading force. They have all kinds of major formations in the Russian far east  they could use. To do that however would require leaving the area basically defenseless, which they probably would not do. What Russia definitely could NOT do right now is logistically support another major "front". They don't have the LOC troops to do it. Russia has always assumed that they could improvise the LOC troops via the draft. Since they are unwilling to declare a full mobilization, they can't do that. Ukraine has taken all the "elasticity" out of Russian logistics. Different story if they did go to a full war footing.

Of course, this is academic, because the US would fight and Russia knows it. Such an action by Russia would also be so terminally destabilizing to the Baltic area that Russia couldn't risk it. NATO (and Poland unilaterally) would have to make a decision about Kaliningrad  Oblast. Conventional wisdom would say NATO can't fight in the Baltic States with Kaliningrad to the rear providing an anti-air threat and raining surface-to-surface missiles down on the rear of the NATO forces. Not to mention the minelayers that would be closing that part of the Baltic Sea. So, that becomes job 1. It would be a great big mess, that is for sure.

FWIW, Russia can't reasonably attack NATO in the south (Romania) because they don't have a big enough Navy in the Black Sea anymore to do it, and they have no other practical way to reach it. Finland is big enough Russia couldn't get a big enough force to capture it quickly (or at all once NATO intervened). They have tried that before. So, it is the Baltics or nothing if one is looking at a "quick" war against a NATO country :-).

In some ways they have done us a favor and helped fire up the NATO Military Industrial Complex so that it would be a bit easier for us to keep up with our hardware losses. Until they invaded Ukraine that might not have been possible.

I am not nearly so sanguine on this issue as you are. I have heard a lot of talk, but the basic fact is "business as usual". There have been actions taken to increase production of 155mm shells, but the vast majority of these actions involve planning for future expansion, not delivering more in 6 months or less. We haven't prioritized production of replacement missiles for the ATACMS that were sent to Ukraine. We are just waiting for the PrSM to come out of the pipeline as previously scheduled. I see no sense of urgency in the government or in the contractors.
In Europe, the UK is continuing with their significant downsizing (again) of their Army. The Ukraine situation was discussed, but it has changed nothing.  In Germany, Rheinmetall has the capacity to immediately increase production of 155mm ammunition, but the contracts have been "delayed". I just haven't seen any urgency for effective action and change.

The one part of the Russian military that has escaped significant losses is their Air Force. If the F16's actually arrive at some point and their pilots are capable enough, their air arm might start taking some hits.

Russian air has sat this war out to a large extent. How they get away with that I don't know, but they have. If the F-16s make it too dangerous for the Russian helicopter and ground attack planes to fly, they just won't (if things stay as they have been in this war).  A big victory for Ukraine if it goes that way. Not big Russian losses because they just say no :-).

I would also think that they would not Iran to tweak the tiger's tail too far as that might mark the end of their access to their drones. Perhaps they might be trying to influence just how far Iran and its allies carry things vis a vis Israel and the USA.  They need those drones.

With our elections coming up, maybe they are hoping to influence things sufficiently to reduce our support of Ukraine if Putin is playing a longer game.

Yes they do need those drones. Therefore they will do to a significant extent whatever Iran wants. Russia may register it's concerns with Iran, and they will be heard, because Iran wants lots of things from Russia. However, Iran is much more in the driver's seat than ever before. I don't think Russia is in any position to moderate Iran's actions and in fact may want to distract the US with another major war to deal with. In both a military and political sense, diverting US attention to the middle east is good for Russia. Russia may eventually have to worry about a resurgent Iran as a local competitor, but right now they are in no position to be choosy.

The What If's go on forever.

Yes, indeed they do.

Kalingrad will probably the first target if there is an attack in the Baltic States. It can't be allowed to just sit there. I also think we are NOT in a position to get involved in anything resembling a major conflict in the Middle East.  I appreciate your take on our production of war materials.  I would assume that we would be taking taking some kind of action to replace all the materials we are sending to the Ukraine, old or not.  Unfortunately, such an assumption is probably destined to be a bad one.

[GK3]

It seems improbable to me that Russia could put together enough trained manpower and higher end equipment to attempt to invade a NATO country.  Their reported hardware losses in the Ukraine seem to have been significant enough that putting together a large enough invading force would be impossible. I wonder if they can even put together enough resources to even come close to replacing their losses within any reasonable period of time.

You are indeed correct that Russia can't fight a major war in Ukraine while starting a war with NATO. It is however entirely possible for Russia to put together a "large enough" invading force. They have all kinds of major formations in the Russian far east  they could use. To do that however would require leaving the area basically defenseless, which they probably would not do. What Russia definitely could NOT do right now is logistically support another major "front". They don't have the LOC troops to do it. Russia has always assumed that they could improvise the LOC troops via the draft. Since they are unwilling to declare a full mobilization, they can't do that. Ukraine has taken all the "elasticity" out of Russian logistics. Different story if they did go to a full war footing.

Of course, this is academic, because the US would fight and Russia knows it. Such an action by Russia would also be so terminally destabilizing to the Baltic area that Russia couldn't risk it. NATO (and Poland unilaterally) would have to make a decision about Kaliningrad  Oblast. Conventional wisdom would say NATO can't fight in the Baltic States with Kaliningrad to the rear providing an anti-air threat and raining surface-to-surface missiles down on the rear of the NATO forces. Not to mention the minelayers that would be closing that part of the Baltic Sea. So, that becomes job 1. It would be a great big mess, that is for sure.

FWIW, Russia can't reasonably attack NATO in the south (Romania) because they don't have a big enough Navy in the Black Sea anymore to do it, and they have no other practical way to reach it. Finland is big enough Russia couldn't get a big enough force to capture it quickly (or at all once NATO intervened). They have tried that before. So, it is the Baltics or nothing if one is looking at a "quick" war against a NATO country :-).

In some ways they have done us a favor and helped fire up the NATO Military Industrial Complex so that it would be a bit easier for us to keep up with our hardware losses. Until they invaded Ukraine that might not have been possible.

I am not nearly so sanguine on this issue as you are. I have heard a lot of talk, but the basic fact is "business as usual". There have been actions taken to increase production of 155mm shells, but the vast majority of these actions involve planning for future expansion, not delivering more in 6 months or less. We haven't prioritized production of replacement missiles for the ATACMS that were sent to Ukraine. We are just waiting for the PrSM to come out of the pipeline as previously scheduled. I see no sense of urgency in the government or in the contractors.
In Europe, the UK is continuing with their significant downsizing (again) of their Army. The Ukraine situation was discussed, but it has changed nothing.  In Germany, Rheinmetall has the capacity to immediately increase production of 155mm ammunition, but the contracts have been "delayed". I just haven't seen any urgency for effective action and change.

The one part of the Russian military that has escaped significant losses is their Air Force. If the F16's actually arrive at some point and their pilots are capable enough, their air arm might start taking some hits.

Russian air has sat this war out to a large extent. How they get away with that I don't know, but they have. If the F-16s make it too dangerous for the Russian helicopter and ground attack planes to fly, they just won't (if things stay as they have been in this war).  A big victory for Ukraine if it goes that way. Not big Russian losses because they just say no :-).

I would also think that they would not Iran to tweak the tiger's tail too far as that might mark the end of their access to their drones. Perhaps they might be trying to influence just how far Iran and its allies carry things vis a vis Israel and the USA.  They need those drones.

With our elections coming up, maybe they are hoping to influence things sufficiently to reduce our support of Ukraine if Putin is playing a longer game.

Yes they do need those drones. Therefore they will do to a significant extent whatever Iran wants. Russia may register it's concerns with Iran, and they will be heard, because Iran wants lots of things from Russia. However, Iran is much more in the driver's seat than ever before. I don't think Russia is in any position to moderate Iran's actions and in fact may want to distract the US with another major war to deal with. In both a military and political sense, diverting US attention to the middle east is good for Russia. Russia may eventually have to worry about a resurgent Iran as a local competitor, but right now they are in no position to be choosy.

The What If's go on forever.

Yes, indeed they do.

Kalingrad will probably the first target if there is an attack in the Baltic States. It can't be allowed to just sit there. I also think we are NOT in a position to get involved in anything resembling a major conflict in the Middle East.  I appreciate your take on our production of war materials.  I would assume that we would be taking taking some kind of action to replace all the materials we are sending to the Ukraine, old or not.  Unfortunately, such an assumption is probably destined to be a bad one.

[Goose]

https://www.yahoo.com/news/belarusian-of...03439.html

The war in Ukraine creates knock-on risks. Belarus is even less capable of starting a war with NATO than Russia, yet here they are talking about doing exactly that. The risk here, and in some other places around the world, is that an "ally" of one of the participants will do something stupid. This type of thing can easily happen when some underling takes a propaganda statement at face value and acts on it. The initiating country then calls for "help" from the ally, who is actually in a poor position to help but feels compelled to try. Ugly escalation can easily result from such actions.

There has been some discussion about how (if at all) the Ukraine war affects China's "plans" for Taiwan. IMO not much, but who really knows? Independent of this question however is the fact that the Ukraine conflict has significantly affected the politics in several NATO nations and has risked driving them away from strong NATO support. It has also encouraged separatists in the Balkans, who believe that NATO and the EU are to preoccupied with Ukraine (and now the middle east as well) to restrain their actions. It is totally possible (IMO likely) that something will break out in the Balkans. If it does, we need to hope it fizzles of it's own accord. Russia is undoubtedly stirring the pot in Serbia, and it could boil.

[Goose]

https://www.yahoo.com/news/belarusian-of...03439.html

The war in Ukraine creates knock-on risks. Belarus is even less capable of starting a war with NATO than Russia, yet here they are talking about doing exactly that. The risk here, and in some other places around the world, is that an "ally" of one of the participants will do something stupid. This type of thing can easily happen when some underling takes a propaganda statement at face value and acts on it. The initiating country then calls for "help" from the ally, who is actually in a poor position to help but feels compelled to try. Ugly escalation can easily result from such actions.

There has been some discussion about how (if at all) the Ukraine war affects China's "plans" for Taiwan. IMO not much, but who really knows? Independent of this question however is the fact that the Ukraine conflict has significantly affected the politics in several NATO nations and has risked driving them away from strong NATO support. It has also encouraged separatists in the Balkans, who believe that NATO and the EU are to preoccupied with Ukraine (and now the middle east as well) to restrain their actions. It is totally possible (IMO likely) that something will break out in the Balkans. If it does, we need to hope it fizzles of it's own accord. Russia is undoubtedly stirring the pot in Serbia, and it could boil.

[TrumpCard]

I continue to see occasional reports about the large numbers of Ukrainians "evacuated" to Russian territory.  For example, this one says the millions of displaced Ukrainians includes 3 million evacuated/deported to Russia, likely including hundreds of thousands of children, only 20,000 of whom have been specifically identified:  https://thehill.com/opinion/internationa...or-action/

Have any of you seen estimates as to the portion of these 3 million people who actually preferred to evacuate to Russia over other parts of Ukraine, potentially because they are ethnic Russians?  I am curious as to the order of magnitude of the core problem here, which is forced deportations to "re-education" facilities.  

Also, have any of you heard about realistic efforts to bring these Ukrainians home, potentially in the context of an overall settlement of disputes?  I continue to hold out hope that the human cost of this war can be mitigated to some extent by a return of abductees.

[TrumpCard]

I continue to see occasional reports about the large numbers of Ukrainians "evacuated" to Russian territory.  For example, this one says the millions of displaced Ukrainians includes 3 million evacuated/deported to Russia, likely including hundreds of thousands of children, only 20,000 of whom have been specifically identified:  https://thehill.com/opinion/internationa...or-action/

Have any of you seen estimates as to the portion of these 3 million people who actually preferred to evacuate to Russia over other parts of Ukraine, potentially because they are ethnic Russians?  I am curious as to the order of magnitude of the core problem here, which is forced deportations to "re-education" facilities.  

Also, have any of you heard about realistic efforts to bring these Ukrainians home, potentially in the context of an overall settlement of disputes?  I continue to hold out hope that the human cost of this war can be mitigated to some extent by a return of abductees.