METO Guido

To be clear, control of the sky is indispensable. Longer range strike capability of advanced offensive weapon systems requires trained specialists. Under command of nato units. NATO boots iow. Long past time for members Turkey, Hungary, Bundesrepublik Deutschland to…walk the walk.

Excargodog

Starting from scratch, it takes you abou 19 years to create an infantry troop. Ukraine's fertility rate has been less than replacement (even ignoring loss from emigration) for two generations.

https://www.macrotrends.net/global-m...fertility-rate

Population peaked at about 52 million in 1988 (depending on whose data you believe) and has been going downhill ever since. Between that and young people emigrating Ther just AREN'T a lot of good infantry recruits there and they know the country's population is in a death spiral if they kill off the limited number of healthy young people they have which is why they don't draft anyone under 25. They have an aging population with a dearth of people in their prime child bearing years which are sort of your prime infantryman recruiting years.

https://www.worldometers.info/demogr...-demographics/

Russia has a similar fertility problem but not as bad and they lose far fewer to emigration.

As I've said before, without NATO boots on the ground or tactical nukes (with all the risks each entails) I just don't see Ukraine ever getting back to their internationally recognized borders through an infantry fight.

Excargodog

Hungary is 9.6 million people, small even by Ukraine standards and Orban is pro Kremlin.
https://www.politico.eu/article/hung...diplomat-kyiv/

Turkey has been looking the other way as Turkish companies help Russia evade the sanctions.
https://responsiblestatecraft.org/us...turkey-russia/ and have largely tried to remain neutral.

And the elections being held today in Saxony and Thuringia look to make the German government even less likely to be helpful to Ukraine.

https://apnews.com/article/germany-s...5e2d8b05e885f1

The problem with the whole NATO 2% of gdp thing is that most of the big economies (excepting the US) don't do it. Poland kicks in 4% currently

https://www.statista.com/statistics/...ato-countries/

but their whole gdp is under $700 billion so that's just $28 billion. Similarly, feisty little Estonia kicks in 3.4% but their gdp is less than $40 billion meaning their defense spending is 1.36 billion. Meanwhile all the larger economies are at the lower end of the expenditure rate.

CLazarus

I get free access to the WSJ and Foreign Policy through the DOD MWR Library website. Not sure if all vets have access or just retirees. Anyways, here's a couple of really interesting articles from Foreign Policy with some excerpts.

https://foreignpolicy.com/2024/08/27...c_latest062921

How the Russian Establishment Really Sees the War Ending.
By Anatol Lieven

"Only a small minority believed that Russia should fight for complete victory in Ukraine, including the annexation of large new areas of Ukrainian territory or the creation of a client regime in Kyiv. A large majority wanted an early cease-fire roughly along the existing battle lines. There is high confidence that the Ukrainian military will never be able to break through and reconquer significant amounts of Ukraine’s lost territories.

Most of my conversations took place before the Ukrainian invasion of the Russian province of Kursk. As far as I can make out, however, this Ukrainian success has not changed basic Russian calculations and views—not least because, at the same time, the Russian army has continued to make significant progress farther east, in the Donbas, where the Russians are closing in on the key town of Pokrovsk. “The attack on Kursk may help Ukraine eventually to get rather better terms, but nothing like a real victory,” in the words of one Russian security expert. “They will sooner or later have to withdraw from Kursk, but we will never withdraw from Crimea and the Donbas.”

https://foreignpolicy.com/2024/08/31...c_latest062921

History Shows: Giving Land to Russia Won't Bring Peace
By Kristi Raik

"The Russian empire—whether the tsarist or Soviet variant—collapsed twice in the 20th century: in 1917, when a communist coup dethroned the tsar, and in 1991, when another, unsuccessful coup was the final death knell for the Soviet Union. Both events created a window of opportunity for many smaller nations to break free. Moscow withdrew from many of its non-Russian territories not because it no longer wanted to have an empire, but because it no longer had the means to keep these territories under its control."

"So far, the West has been surprised by Russia’s ability to bear the heavy cost for its invasion of Ukraine. In Western societies, human life is priceless; in Russia, it is cheap. The Russian regime has been able to rely on seemingly endless waves of expendable soldiers and a harsh redirection of its economy to defense production in ways that would be far too costly for any democratic leader. What can be fatal for a Russian leader, however, is any perceived weakness and the failure to uphold Russia’s greatness. Most Russians want to live in a great country that dominates others, and they are ready to accept sacrifices for this cause, as documented in detail in books by Svetlana Alexievich, Jade McGlynn, and others"

"Full restoration of Ukraine’s territorial integrity will likely require another collapse of the Russian empire. It may be years ahead, but Russia’s historical trajectory suggests that it will happen at some point, as the country has shown itself to be incapable of correcting course through evolution rather than revolution. A Western “reset” with the current regime will not be possible without sacrificing Ukraine’s independence and the core principles of the European security order, including the principles of sovereignty and territorial integrity."

METO Guido

Yes, they’re alliance slackers. In the case of Turkey, nato’s largest standing army, hosting the Russian delegation (guaranteeing security) with nothing to show for it cannot be ignored. If a member won’t muster now, they never will. Boots, start walkin.

Excargodog

On an economic basis, it's Canada who is the perennial slacker. Despite having a GDP in the top five in NATO, hence being ABLE to have substantial capability they rarely exceed 1.3% spending on defense. But it's even more convoluted than that. Many NATO members are still trading with Russia, helping to provide the means for Russia to make these massive wartime expenditures:

https://www.politico.eu/article/hung...-eu-ministers/

One has to question the wisdom of ever allowing Hungary or Slovakia into NATO at all. Like Turkey, they are more interested in good trading deals with Russia and manipulating EU politics than trying to stand up to Russia over Ukraine.

https://ukraineworld.org/en/articles...ngary-slovakia

METO Guido

Member states unwilling to meaningfully back alliance objectives in Ukraine should withdraw voluntarily. Otherwise, relegation to associate status dudes.

Excargodog

The mistake was giving them membership to begin with in an organization where so much depends on absolute consensus and any one country can submarine the others. Some of the recent additions add virtually nothing to the actual deterrent capability of NATO (which after all, was its charter - to deter war - not necessarily to fight it. But each new arrival came with its own cultural agendas and imperatives.

Recent additions:
Sweden 2024. Population 10.5 million
Finland 2023 Population. 5.5 milion
North Macedonia 2020. Population. 2 million
Montenegro. 2017. Population 617,000
Albania 2009. Population 2.8 million
Croatia 2009. Population 3.9 million.



Yeah, I know. I had to look up mimeograph machine myself.

METO Guido

That’s a hoot. Saw one on American pickers I think. Big heavy thing supposed to repurposed as a Miata or some such nonsense. I can still remember seeing a few in print shoppes. Made a cool sound.

ReluctantEskimo

Kargo has been persecuting the NATO slackers for years on this forum.

I can't wait for the dissonance when it comes time to slash our military budgets. To enjoy the monetary benefits of isolationism and the safety of the oceanic moats around this nation.

But no. He'll be clamoring for just as much spending. A jobs program for the military minded.