This is the most irritating fact with these "experts", when they leave totally away the naked imperialist ambitions out, because that is the basic reason just why these countries insisted in joining NATO. The narrative of the US just going and picking on Russia is biased and simply wrong.

In fact the real criticism against NATO shouldn't have been the typical anti-Americanism, but the fact that the US had seem to lost the reasoning just why NATO was so successful, because European countries genuinely loved it. Comparing to CENTO and SEATO, nothing of the kind of synergy happened between members states in those historical treaty organizations. Above all, the success in creating a team from independent nations is the true accomplishment in NATO.

As we have this incredible situation where the US president is in love with Putin and has become the enabler of Russian aggression and is ruining the position of the United States, we clearly see what the result is. Once the US leaves, then the need for a new security system is evident.

Now some argue that Russia isn't a threat to Europe because it hasn't been able to defeat Ukraine. Well, earlier the same people were saying was that Russia couldn't fight itself out of a brown paper bag when it didn't achieve success in the first Chechen war. And now with the American president supporting Russia, Russia is really an existential threat to Europe. With the actions that Trump has now taken, I wouldn't be surprised if Trump would start limit European weapon deliveries to Ukraine.

And we see the outcome here: Europeans will make an effort to defense. Even if it's not declared by everybody, the French idea of strategic autonomy has finally won. People are in denial if they think that the Trump administration can be trusted to fall in line if a NATO member feels threatened and calls for article 5. Only few years earlier this was a pipe dream, but thanks to Trump, it isn't.

Just as by invading Ukraine in 2022, Putin put Finland and Sweden to join NATO, now in 2025 Trump's actions have put the European NATO members plus Canada to think about a world without the US seriously. The question is, that once Europe does get it's act together, why would then afterwards listen to the whims and the rants of the US president later.

Indeed. The only viable strategy for democratic nations right now is to work around the US. Withhold intelligence, reconfigure trade agreements among themselves, shutting the US out whenever possible, exclude the Trump regime from discussions, negotiations and diplomatic endeavours. It won't be easy... but it may not have to be carried on for too long: once the Trumpites are kicked out, relations can resume.

Please, do not forget my country and Poland and Sweden and Lithuania and... the goddam 30 countries or so involved in this! — ssu

All of those are part of the EU and/or Nato, so from the perspective of Russia it does look like its rival is in the process of overwelming them... that's what Thucidides traps is about.

And sure reality is allways more complex, it's just a model of how these situations tend to evolve, and can help us to think about these situations in more long term strategic ways.

Aside from the question of who is to blame for what, what do you think we should do when the US leaves the war? What are we hoping to accomplish with continuing the war?

Do you think we can take back territory to eventually force a better deal with Russia? For that you need a lot of troops and Ukraines manpower is down a lot already. In any case it seems we would need years to maybe eventually reach that goal. Is that really in our, or even Ukraines best interest?

I just don't see it. The case that's been made for it is allways only a moral one. But the reality is that you need to take the territory back to be able to force our demands on the negiotiation table.

Convince me.

You don't see Putin as a future threat to the region?

Only if the US would flip to Russia's side more permanently, and in that case the US is probably the bigger threat.

If Europe unites more military, as geo-political forces push it to do now, then we can detter Russia on its own form attacting other countries I would think. We obviously shouldn't be naïve about it, and assume they won't attack, we definitely should detter it with military strenght.

It's the prospects for this particular war that are bad I think, not the overall picture.

To put it in another way, I don't get why people think prolonging this war helps in protecting us from further future Russian aggression. I would think going in unprepared in a war that's going to be difficult to make progress in, is worse for our security than using that time and resources to build up strenght to detter future aggression.

Only if the US would flip to Russia's side more permanently, and in that case the US is probably the bigger threat. — ChatteringMonkey

The US administration isn't hawkish, in spite of the talk about taking Greenland and Canada. There's a lot of cognizance of the costs involved in governmental projects. If a tariff would make Canada give up their sovereignty, that would be on the table, in fact Trump publicly floated that.

Europe unites more military, as geo-political forces push it to do now, then we can detter Russia on its own form attacting other countries I would think. We obviously shouldn't be naïve about it, and assume they won't attack, we definitely should detter it with military strenght. — ChatteringMonkey

:up:

To put it in another way, I don't get why people think prolonging this war helps in protecting us from further future Russian aggression — ChatteringMonkey

Honestly, I don't think Biden counted on Putin allowing his economy, society, and military to be laid to waste by the war in Ukraine. That's just such a bizarre thing to do. Or maybe it's just bizarre from an American point of view? There just hasn't been a rational pivot from Biden's hawkish stance.

Indeed. The only viable strategy for democratic nations right now is to work around the US. Withhold intelligence, reconfigure trade agreements among themselves, shutting the US out whenever possible, exclude the Trump regime from discussions, negotiations and diplomatic endeavours. It won't be easy... but it may not have to be carried on for too long: once the Trumpites are kicked out, relations can resume. — Vera Mont

This actually is the reality. How you kick out the MAGA lunatics will be the question, because as you can see the Trump recession is already here, even if Trump is waivering with the tariff-destruction. WIll it happen through elections, demonstrations, a revolution or civil war. Because with Trump those last horrible scenarios aren't just imagination for Hollywood-movies, but theoretically totally possible outcomes.

Perhaps the way here is just to keep the door open for the US to join it's allies once this mental breakdown called the Trump administration is over. Perhaps how France under DeGaulle went away from the alliance in the 1960's to join later back would give us an example of how to deal with the Trumpian tantrum.

Unfortunately I think it won't go so diplomatically. Once Trump really understands what is happening, it's not only Denmark that will be badmouthed to the MAGA crowd. And naturally Russia as the enemy of the US will try it's best to make the rift even bigger.

Honestly, I don't think Biden counted on Putin allowing his economy, society, and military to be laid to waste by the war in Ukraine. That's just such a bizarre thing to do. Or maybe it's just bizarre from an American point of view? There just hasn't been a rational pivot from Biden's hawkish stance. — frank

Biden probably couldn't lose face after all the propaganda propping up the war and making it seem like winnable war.

One semi-plausible explanation I've heard is that Putin needed the war to stabilize his position internally... a war tends to call for unity and makes justification for expelling dissidents more easy.

Biden probably couldn't lose face after all the propaganda propping up the war and making it seem like winnable war. — ChatteringMonkey

I don't read the situation that way. Biden was a career politician. He could have backed out in a way that would have made everyone happy. He just wanted to grind Putin into the ground. I think it was personal.

One semi-plausible explanation I've heard is that Putin needed the war to stabilize his position internally... a war tends to call for unity and makes justification for expelling dissidents more easy. — ChatteringMonkey

This is exactly what I thought. He came to power on the heels of a bogus war. War is his friend. But everyone I talked to about it nixed the idea.

This actually is the reality. How you kick out the MAGA lunatics will be the question, — ssu

Not for us; for Americans. Other countries are forced to defend themselves against Trump's economic wrecking crew, and that will hurt innocent Americans. I can only hope that other countries won't be held responsible for that pain: Trump is well practiced in diverting blame to things he caused onto his victims, and far too many American voters have fallen for his line of bullshit more than once.
Are the Democrat up to organizing a good enough opposition, or will the bitterness erupt in random acts of violence against random scapegoats? One glimmer of light: this insane pogrom on government workers is getting some blowback from former Trump supporters.

Perhaps the way here is just to keep the door open for the US to join it's allies once this mental breakdown called the Trump administration is over — ssu

I think they're sensible enough to do that. And hope a savvy Dem leadership reaches out to them though non-official channels. For sure, there will be a thriving black market back and forth, so lines of communication will still be open.

This is exactly what I thought. He came to power on the heels of a bogus war. War is his friend. But everyone I talked to about it nixed the idea. — frank

It's been working to Netanyahu. But then, his war is not so costly that they'll depose him and lock him up for fraud.

I don't read the situation that way. Biden was a career politician. He could have backed out in a way that would have made everyone happy. He just wanted to grind Putin into the ground. I think it was personal. — frank

Could be, it is weirdly personal between the three of them.

And sure reality is allways more complex, it's just a model of how these situations tend to evolve, and can help us to think about these situations in more long term strategic ways. — ChatteringMonkey

Models are valuable only if they truly depict reality.

Yet I would emphasize that taking the "minor states" only as either proxies or allies of Greater powers, which then can be erased from the equation, is wrong and creates huge, dramatic mistakes. When you go through the objectives and agenda of the regional players, even the smaller ones, you can create a functioning and effective policy, that actually will work. Otherwise, it will sooner or later be a fiasco.

First think of Vietnam.

The Domino Theory just put Vietnam, China and the Soviet bloc all together. Just this Red communism that would collapse country after country like falling dominoes. Well, even the Commies in fact they weren't so together, which can be seen from the Chinese-Vietnamese border war fought only few years after the South was defeated and the country unified. And then it was the Vietnamese who intervened in Cambodia and fought of the Khmer Rouge. But hey, they are all just a bunch of commies unified through their ideology!!!

Then there's Afghanistan.

As I've said, Pakistan had an absolutely crucial role in war in Afghanistan. After all, the Taleban had been their proxy. And Pakistan could burn the candle from both ends: it gave officially support to the "War on Terror" and also aided the Taleban finally to it's victory. And it's real existential threat that it looks at is India, and why it wants to dominate Afghanistan. But how did the Americans approach the war? For them they fought the Taleban because "otherwise Afghanistan would be a safe haven for terrorists to attack Continental US." That was the line given and parroted by everybody as it was the line given to the domestic audience. But that was then really what the policy came to. Absolutely no thought given here to the power structure of the region. And that's why the US kicked out from all of Central Asia, not just Afghanistan.

Similar thing is happening here when Trump wanting to get good relations with Russia is sacrificing Ukraine and trying his best to give the country on a silver platter to his friend, that "he has been through hell", will continue to chip away the ties that have been the foundation for the largest alliance ever.

. And hope a savvy Dem leadership reaches out to them though non-official channels. For sure, there will be a thriving black market back and forth, so lines of communication will still be open. — Vera Mont

I think the Americans could be better served by a total reform of the two party system. Centrist Democrats and actual conservatives, not the MAGA-church, could find themselves and simply demand justice, respect of the Constitution and the end of oligarch rule. Fight against the robber barons, act II.

Yet I would emphasize that taking the "minor states" only as either proxies or allies of Greater powers, which then can be erased from the equation, is wrong and creates huge, dramatic mistakes. — ssu

I don't think so because the US largely decides for NATO-members in practice.

Aside from the question of who is to blame for what, what do you think we should do when the US leaves the war? What are we hoping to accomplish with continuing the war? — ChatteringMonkey

Number 1: DON'T BELIEVE THE BULLSHIT FROM TRUMP

Putin doesn't want peace. What Putin will accept now is surrender. Or a deal that put's Ukraine in such a difficult position that it cannot defend itself if Putin rearms and then attacks again. Only peace terms that Putin cannot win on the battlefield is interesting to him. What Putin has said is that he is interested in normalizing the ties with the US and that's it. No negotiations have even started. The only the thing what has happened is that Trump is amplifying Kremlin propaganda, attacking Ukraine and giving every card away.

Yet the truth Russia will only negotiate if continuing the war can be more risky. That's the thing what history has told us and that's that the peace deals that my country has made with Russia/Soviet Union tells us:

In 1939-1940 Finland with a population of 3,7 million faced over a country with well over 170 million people. Stalin didn't end the war because Finns put up a defense. Stalin chose to negotiate with the "illegal Capitalist Finnish government" because there was the possibility of France and United Kingdom coming to the side of Finland. Stalin, even then in 1940, thought that the West (even Germany) could then ally against him.

In 1944 Stalin chose again peace with Finland because his assault against Finland in the summer had stopped and was out of steam, we even had made a successful counterattack and we Finns still had behind us our main defensive line, the Salpa Line. The Allies had already broken through from Normandy and rushing towards Berlin. Soviet Union had launched it's successful Operation Bagration and the last thing Stalin had in mind was to put more forces on a separate not so strategic front and perhaps lose the contest to take Berlin.

The fact is this: True peace, or even a cease-fire, can be dealt from a position of strength. Of course, you can always surrender. If the Ukrainians want to surrender, nobody cannot do anything about that. If they want to defend their country, we should assist them. It's us next if they fall.

I don't think so because the US largely decides for NATO-members in practice. — ChatteringMonkey

You think so?
We the pitiful paracites, that ought to pay...

And how did that go with Obama and his red-line in the sand? Tell me.

If you believe that NATO is similar to the Warsaw Pact, then you are quite ignorant.

You think so?
We the pitiful paracites, that ought to pay...

And how did that go with Obama and his red-line in the sand? Tell me.

If you believe that NATO is similar to the Warsaw Pact, then you are quite ignorant. — ssu

It has similar consequences, which just are arrived at in a less hardhanded and obvious way.

I think the Americans could be better served by a total reform of the two party system. Centrist Democrats and actual conservatives, not the MAGA-church, could find themselves and simply demand justice, respect of the Constitution and the end of oligarch rule. — ssu

Yes, of course. The electoral process has always been flawed and the corruption that's crept in over the last few decades renders it damn near unworkable. But who can effect a major reform? In Canada, we've been flirting with and even courting a more representative model than first-past-the-post, but nobody can get it done, because the legislature is composed of people who won by the old method and have a vested interest. The US system is so deeply mired in money and circuses, I can't see politicians being able to change it, even if they were willing.

It has the same consequences, which just are arrived at in a less hardhanded and obvious way. — ChatteringMonkey

No.

To have the Soviet Union or the satellite Warsaw pact states or to have a free democracy don't have the same consequences. Just as being under Russian or in an independent state is far different. Obviously you never had been in the Soviet Union or behind the iron curtain when there was one. I have, it really sucked.

In fact you will just now witness just how different NATO is from the past Warsaw Pact, if Trump tries to bully his (former?) allies.

But who can effect a major reform? — Vera Mont

There only one answer: only the people themselves.

But if the politicians can instill that polarization and hatred at each other, then the current system can system go on. If the people come together, then the change can be rapid. Anyway, Canada could have a G6 meeting in Kanaskis in June and think what to do with Trump. That would send him a signal.

I think the Americans could be better served by a total reform of the two party system. — ssu

There is no two party system. It's just that a third party always cripples one of the main two, so there's effort on both sides to avoid fragmentation.

There only one answer: only the people themselves. — ssu

Not yet. And the division is so deep, maybe never without a revolution or civil war. Which, depends on whether the present regime has time and sufficient support to entrench a dictatorship, or their egregious actions cause massive opposition. Even if the progressive forces win either kind of confrontation, it will require leader of enormous vision, courage, wisdom, persuasive powers and stamina to close the rift.
I'm not expecting a rapid or neat resolution.

No.

To have the Soviet Union or the satellite Warsaw pact states or to have a free democracy don't have the same consequences. Just as being under Russian or in an independent state is far different. Obviously you never had been in the Soviet Union or behind the iron curtain when there was one. I have, it really sucked.

In fact you will just now witness just how different NATO is from the past Warsaw Pact, if Trump tries to bully his (former?) allies. — ssu

We were talking about military power, as that is what is relevant for the Thucidydes trap... it has similar consequences on that account, I wasn't talking about the rest.

In fact you will just now witness just how different NATO is from the past Warsaw Pact, if Trump tries to bully his (former?) allies. — ssu

I think NATO is done de facto... which would be a good thing for Europe in the longer term.

Business as usual I guess

How spy ring did Russia's dirty work from the UK
^{— Chris Bell, Tom Beal, Daniel De Simone · BBC · Mar 6, 2025}

The reality is there: True peace, or even a cease-fire, can be dealt from a position of strength. Of course, you can always surrender. If the Ukrainians want to surrender, nobody cannot do anything about that. If they want to defend their country, we should assist them. It's us next. — ssu

That doesn't really answer the question, why it would be better to prolong this war for European security, instead of using that time and resources to build up strenght to detter future aggression. If it's us next, going unprepared in a war that will be difficult to win, doesn't seem like the best option.

There is no two party system. It's just that a third party always cripples one of the main two, so there's effort on both sides to avoid fragmentation. — frank

No, what you are stating is the two party system that I'm talking about, which is actually in the minds of Americans. Oh... I have to vote the Dems/the GOP, because a voting to third party candidate would be a vote to the candidate I hate even more.

And then Americans have the idea of primaries. As if the only way for bring change would be through the existing parties. The US just like other countries have only the primary elections. What political parties do is totally dependent on the party works.

And finally the belief in all powerful POTUS. This is the problem. A Republic and a democratic system doesn't work like you elect a King/Emperor for four years, and he'll change everything. But that's what you do have now: a modern day version of emperor Nero.

Not yet. And the division is so deep, maybe never without a revolution or civil war. Which, depends on whether the present regime has time and sufficient support to entrench a dictatorship, or their egregious actions cause massive opposition. Even if the progressive forces win either kind of confrontation, it will require leader of enormous vision, courage, wisdom, persuasive powers and stamina to close the rift.
I'm not expecting a rapid or neat resolution. — Vera Mont

Neither am I. Yet Trump will his utmost to create destruction and destroy the economy and the foreign relations that the US has. In the end this will anger a lot Americans. It's just over a month of his rule and look at what chaos he has already been capable of doing.

I think NATO is done de facto... which would be a good thing for Europe in the longer term. — ChatteringMonkey

But ask yourself really, is it good that Europe and the US go separate ways? How does that make the World better?

Naturally they will go separate ways, when the US acts like a bully and with hostility and contempt against it's allies.

That doesn't really answer the question, why it would be better to prolong this war for European security, instead of using that time and resources to build up strenght to detter future aggression. If it's us next, going unprepared in a war that will be difficult to win, doesn't seem like the best option. — ChatteringMonkey

Look, Russia hasn't changed it's objectives and it wants far more territory than it has now and wants a "finladized" Ukraine, realistic option would be a puppet leader for rump Ukraine, if not the total annexation of Ukraine in the future. Either Russia gets what it wants or is put into situation where the continuation of the war has worse consequences than a cessation of hostilities. Those are the only two reasons for the war to stop.

What from above that you don't understand or doesn't answer your question?

There is no option like "Let's stop the war now because it's killing too many people." It's either of those two situations that Russia will stop the war. Anything else doesn't exist. And what Trump is doing now is enabling Russia to reach it's objectives by making it more difficult for Ukraine to defend itself. But Russia is here the attacker and it calls the shots. Now as Trump is helping Russia, Putin's dismal situation is improving rapidly thanks to Trump.

And if Russia achieves it's objectives, what are the consequences? Have you heard about the millionaire that after getting his second million dollars and said "OK, that's enough for me"? That millionaire doesn't exist, he will try to get the third million and the fourth and so on. His success is defined by the amount of millions or billions he has. With Putin it's the territory and the power Russia has in the World.

Trump already gave Afghanistan to the Taleban. That is how he treats his "allies". And it seems he is pushing for a similar resolution again with Ukraine. The next thing that likely is happening already behind closed doors, is that the US is hindering the efforts of Europe to give support to Ukraine. Europe really has to stand up here, because the Trump negotiating tactic is to surrender to have the quick peace he wants. Which is a very dangerous policy which already has had devastating effects, because the chaotic withdrawal from Afghanistan did enforce Putin's reasoning that he could have the three week war and conquer Ukraine.

But ask yourself really, is it good that Europe and the US go separate ways? How does that make the World better?

Naturally they will go separate ways, when the US acts like a bully and with hostility and contempt against it's allies. — ssu

I think something more fundamental is going on, they are essentially trying to overthrow the liberal democratic order because they think it was destroying the US. And they think it's destroying Europe too... Europe is their ideological enemy now.

It isn't about the world, it's about Europe, at least for me. It would be good for Europe because they have shown that they can't be relied on to have our interests in mind. I think we would be better of if we could determine our own direction.

Look, Russia hasn't changed it's objectives and it wants far more territory than it has now and wants a "finladized" Ukraine, realistic option would be a puppet leader for rump Ukraine, if not the total annexation of Ukraine in the future. Either Russia gets what it wants or is put into situation where the continuation of the war has worse consequences than a cessation of hostilities. Those are the only two reasons for the war to stop.

What from above that you don't understand or doesn't answer your question? — ssu

I understand that it would be bad for Ukraine. What I don't understand is why you think our negotiating position will become better if we continue the war.

To make our negotiation position better we need to take back territory. To take back territory you need a lot of troops, which Ukraine has less and less of. That means we would probably need to send a lot of European troops, which would escalate the war into a direct Russia-Europe war...

If the US leaves we lose the intelligence, tactical and logistic support. At this moment the European coördination is lacking if the US isn't filling that role. So we'd essentially be sending in troops without much experience and lacking propper support.

We should take the space Trump creates to get or at least try to negotiate a peace deal. If it doesn't work fine, then we fight... but we should at least put all effort in the negotiations first, and not constantly antagonise and assume it will fail beforehand.

I think something more fundamental is going on, they are essentially trying to overthrow the liberal democratic order because they think it was destroying the US. — ChatteringMonkey

The alt-right is diverse, but for some, it's that liberal democracy failed to protect the people, leftism tried to help, but is now fossilized. So it's: 'what do you do about the anti-social aspects of neoliberalism now that leftism is clearly useless?' Think about this from Vance's perspective as a man whose mother was addicted to heroin. The US government knew huge amounts of life-destroying drugs were coming in from the rest of the world. They let it happen. Finally, Canada and Mexico are being forced to help. Why didn't this happen sooner?

So it's real social disintegration driving some of it. Europe is heavily neoliberal, so their goals are now at odds with American ones.