3 ms·
It's more of an attack of opportunity rather than a preconceived masterplan I think. In chess terms: the Russians blundered and NATO is taking advantage of it.
by WJW 4y ago
It's more of an attack of opportunity rather than a preconceived masterplan I think. In chess terms: the Russians blundered and NATO is taking advantage of it.
A similar thing happened with the Sweden and Finland situation: NATO would prefer them to be a part of the alliance but had acquiesced to them remaining neutral. However when the war started and they decided they would actually prefer to join NATO now, the current members (except Turkiye, but even they didn't oppose it on military grounds) were more than happy to fast-track their joining procedures. Never waste a good crisis, as the saying goes.
I do think NATO could have done more if they really wanted to end the war quicker. As the original comment mentioned, the western countries have pretty large stockpiles of armored vehicles that could be sent over. There are also plenty of systems like ATACMS and cluster munitions that the USA has but has decided not to supply to Ukraine. The fact that NATO has so far declined to supply these weapons even though they could indeed be used to end the conflict sooner indicates to me that they are not interested in ending the conflict as soon as possible.
- smcl 4y agoWell NATO members like Poland, Slovakia and Czech Republic have been supplying armoured vehicles, and importantly they’ve been of the similar type that the Ukrainian army already trained to use and maintain. It’s been stated elsewhere in this thread that you can’t just do s/T72/M1 Abrams/ on an army. I agree that we can do more, but I don’t think we can do enough to turn the tides overnight without trucking in brigades of NATO forces and starting WW3.
- NicoJuicy 4y agoThere has always been a plan on a sort of escalation ladder. But it was always planned on the stupidity of another country to escalate. And that's exactly what's happening.