Disarmament is feasible (and very smart, because war is a terrible waste) if the other side is understanding and willing. In the 1980-ties, the USSR under Gorbachev was willing to mutually reduce nuclear weapons. Gorbachev also ended the attempt to make Afghanistan into a Soviet satellite state and loosened the rules in the Soviet bloc enough for most of Eastern Europe to leave the bloc. Russia under Putin has not shown any willingness to widthdraw or disarm. In fact, it is making desperate attempts to restart all the Soviet military industries, double down and overwhelm Ukraine.
(for those unaware: the war is Gaza is statistically a gang shootout compared to the war in Ukraine, the intensity differs so much that I’m not even addressing it - it’s practically over, Hamas attacked and lost)
NATO countries are of course increasing military production - ironically at such a leisurely pace that EU has been able to supply some 0.3 million of the 1 million shells promised to Ukraine, while North Korea has been able to hand 2 million shells to Russia. I don’t see a case for claiming that NATO is arming too fast. I see a case for claiming that NATO is arming ridiculously slow, at a pace which might allow Russia to force an unfavourable deal on Ukraine.
I would predict: if Putin wins in Ukraine, or gets considerable parts of Ukraine as war spoils, in a decade’s time, the next war will be Russia vs. Eastern Europe. Most of the warring parties will be NATO members then. And indeed, those countries (Finland, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, Czech Republic, Slovakia, Romania, Bulgaria) - they have all rapidly raised their military production and purchases.
About escalation: so far, all the long-range offensive weapons supplied by NATO have come with the strict condition that they may not be fired at Russian territory, and Ukraine has respected that - firing them only at occupied Ukrainian territory. Not a single ATACMS or Storm Shadow has landed in a Russian nuclear bunker, not to mention a seat of government. Ukraine is using Western missiles to shoot at its own (occupied) territory, hardly an escalation.
(a side note: Ukrainian-made drones do land in Russia regularly, mostly destroying aircraft that would bomb Ukraine - and World War 3 has not broken out because of that)
To finish up, I’d like to point out that the US is not even scheduled to give airplanes to Ukraine. The F-16 planes are being given by Denmark and the Netherlands.
P.S.
What’s the rationale for calling Biden “Genocide Joe”? If that’s an appropriate nickname, what do we call heads of state who start an actual war? :o
P.P.S.
Problems have differing levels of urgency. Wars tend to have the highest. Several EU countries have indeed been forced to scale back their climate plans because they don’t have enough money to make the green transition and help Ukraine defend against Russia at the same time. The rise in interest rates has also contributed - it’s harder to finance projects with a loan. However, they have also made incredibly fast pace at curbing their use of Russian oil and gas. Ironically, by proving what a fine seller Russia is (“run for the hills” grade of fine), Putin has contributed greatly to the transition off fossil fuels. Once he’s deposed, tried and jailed, he should get a medal for that. :)
Strongly disagree.
Disarmament is feasible (and very smart, because war is a terrible waste) if the other side is understanding and willing. In the 1980-ties, the USSR under Gorbachev was willing to mutually reduce nuclear weapons. Gorbachev also ended the attempt to make Afghanistan into a Soviet satellite state and loosened the rules in the Soviet bloc enough for most of Eastern Europe to leave the bloc. Russia under Putin has not shown any willingness to widthdraw or disarm. In fact, it is making desperate attempts to restart all the Soviet military industries, double down and overwhelm Ukraine.
(for those unaware: the war is Gaza is statistically a gang shootout compared to the war in Ukraine, the intensity differs so much that I’m not even addressing it - it’s practically over, Hamas attacked and lost)
NATO countries are of course increasing military production - ironically at such a leisurely pace that EU has been able to supply some 0.3 million of the 1 million shells promised to Ukraine, while North Korea has been able to hand 2 million shells to Russia. I don’t see a case for claiming that NATO is arming too fast. I see a case for claiming that NATO is arming ridiculously slow, at a pace which might allow Russia to force an unfavourable deal on Ukraine.
I would predict: if Putin wins in Ukraine, or gets considerable parts of Ukraine as war spoils, in a decade’s time, the next war will be Russia vs. Eastern Europe. Most of the warring parties will be NATO members then. And indeed, those countries (Finland, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, Czech Republic, Slovakia, Romania, Bulgaria) - they have all rapidly raised their military production and purchases.
About escalation: so far, all the long-range offensive weapons supplied by NATO have come with the strict condition that they may not be fired at Russian territory, and Ukraine has respected that - firing them only at occupied Ukrainian territory. Not a single ATACMS or Storm Shadow has landed in a Russian nuclear bunker, not to mention a seat of government. Ukraine is using Western missiles to shoot at its own (occupied) territory, hardly an escalation.
(a side note: Ukrainian-made drones do land in Russia regularly, mostly destroying aircraft that would bomb Ukraine - and World War 3 has not broken out because of that)
To finish up, I’d like to point out that the US is not even scheduled to give airplanes to Ukraine. The F-16 planes are being given by Denmark and the Netherlands.
P.S.
What’s the rationale for calling Biden “Genocide Joe”? If that’s an appropriate nickname, what do we call heads of state who start an actual war? :o
P.P.S.
Problems have differing levels of urgency. Wars tend to have the highest. Several EU countries have indeed been forced to scale back their climate plans because they don’t have enough money to make the green transition and help Ukraine defend against Russia at the same time. The rise in interest rates has also contributed - it’s harder to finance projects with a loan. However, they have also made incredibly fast pace at curbing their use of Russian oil and gas. Ironically, by proving what a fine seller Russia is (“run for the hills” grade of fine), Putin has contributed greatly to the transition off fossil fuels. Once he’s deposed, tried and jailed, he should get a medal for that. :)