Most of Europe is in NATO. NATO nations committing troops would likely drag all of NATO into war with Russia, increasing the chance of a nuclear war. That's not something NATO wants.

So paradoxically, by NATO increasing in members, its non-MAD strength decreases.

Not really, because Sweden wasn't going to send troops to Ukraine as a NATO proxy without a defence pact anyway.

1. It's really doubtful Russia will commit to nuclear war.

2. If it does, it will do that regardless of whether or not NATO enters the war or not. Russia has signalled it has no intentions of stopping its war of conquest

I'd be curious what details you're drawing on to make those conclusions.

Regarding #1, do you think this is the case if Ukraine, for example, gains enough traction to attack Russian border cities as a means of preventing a Russian regrouping and counter-attack? Or is the word "commit" doing a lot of heavy lifting here?

Regarding #2, I've heard two scenarios that would counter this. If Russia wins in Ukraine, they likely have an interest in further expansion. If they think NATO isn't really as committed as they claim, a nuclear exchange into someplace like Poland would prove that, as well as giving the US a plausible way to back out of NATO commitments. That's a huge win for Russia. The previous statement about Ukrainian success provides the other example. Both cases are conditional on NATO activities.

> if Ukraine, for example, gains enough traction to attack Russian border cities

That has already happened.

https://apnews.com/article/russia-ukraine-war-drones-a9fc4dd...

> Regarding #1

Too much in Russia depends on the West. I'm not even talking about its industrial capacity which can't even produce military equipment without foreign components.

Their children study and live in Europe and the US. Their families live in Europe. Their business interests are in Europe.

I really doubt any of them will risk a nuclear war.

> Regarding #2

They've been quite vocal about this for a long time: they will continue war until stopped. At least until they claim all/most of the former USSR territories. Some of those territories (the Baltic states) are in NATO.

Taken together what you wrote here is a convenient framework for all blame of any possible nuclear exchange to be entirely disconnected from NATO.

Describing it as "convenient" does not make also make it any less true or accurate, which are the true metrics a framework should be evaluated by. We can't disregard frameworks just because we don't want one side to benefit, we must evaluate frameworks on whether they represent reality.

If Russia starts nuclear exchanges yes they will be solely responsible. They are being aggressor.

Also, they signaled wish to expand beyond Ukraine multiple times last year.

There's exactly one country threatening its nukes, conducting the largest war in Europe since WWII and showing no willingness to stop.

So, the question is: what do you do? Sit back and let it take whatever it wants?

It has been going better than the last 30 years. Military cooperation in Europe broke down with the last Reforger of '93. It is great that Europe cooperates more, the view of the US public on NATO can be seen in any US TV series or Hollywood film - it does not exist.

> the view of the US public on NATO can be seen in any US TV series or Hollywood film - it does not exist.

I wouldn't say it doesn't exist. To me, it's always more of that "we'll let you guys muck about until it's totally obvious you're not going to fix it, then we'll ride in to save the day" attitude. Not saying that's accurate, but that's how it's portrayed by Hollywood

What Hollywood film that involves the US military does include NATO militaries? Rewatching SG-1, and of course it's US only.

Other than WWII films, I can't think of any Hollywood that actively promotes NATO in anything other than a joke. Even the more common cop shows, once an investigation goes international and INTERPOL has to be brought it, it's always a big sigh as if "oh boy, here's where the wheels fall off the bus" as the member agencies that make up INTERPOL are definitely looked down upon.

The flip side of this is watching European shows, and they all feel like US law enforcement is just a bunch of gung ho gun toting cowboys. Neither view is entirely accurate, nor are they inaccurate as they are just stereotypes

I don't think it was Hollywood per se but The Day After did.

I've heard that a us tv show about marines or whatever used to include European, Mexican and south American special forces as allies regularly, to add realism in conflict they're not alone in.

> Not saying that's accurate

It's fairly accurate

Less accurate for a NATO that contains Sweden & Finland, though. There's no doubt those 2 have and will pull their weight.

Speaking as a Canadian, whose country doesn't.

There's a difference between member states pulling their weight and the org itself pulling itself together to behave as a coherent entity. If Turkey (or any member) decides to veto or drags its feet prevent any action at all from occurring, it doesn't matter. In the mean time, the aggressor is taking advantage and ransacking its way through Europe. The whole time, the individual members are waiting for the Yanks to get off their arses to unilaterally come to action. Then they can later point at how the Yanks are always doing things unilaterally and turn them into the whipping boy.

There is no veto power on article 5. It is up to the member states to organize their response or not, but they cant prevent other states to do so.

> will pull their weight

How much do they weigh in comparison to the 800lb gorilla that is the United States?

The non-US members of NATO combined are larger economically, demographically and geographically than the US is. If they all pulled their weight NATO would have (slightly) more contribution from non-US countries than from the US.

The non-US members all have different views that must reach a consensus before any action which is precisely where the machine grinds to a halt. Which means a consensus is rarely reached. Contrasting that to the US which can bring all of its might with the whims of one leader and possible brow beating of congress to agree.

In this way, NATO/UN is interchangeable from the US point of view.

> If they all pulled their weight

This hypothetical doesn't advance the original claim. Sweden might punch well above its weight. But that hardly matters in absolute terms.

>unironically derives his understanding of the world from his consumption of Hollywood slop

Granted, a widespread problem, but, in my experience, nowhere as bad as in contemporary Germany. Why is that?

Sweden and Finland are in NATO. Leverage from turkey and Hungary is decreasing, if you haven't seen it.

Democracy may be slow, but it's still the best system.

Additionally, now support for Ukraine can increase and it should go faster.

God, I really hope it goes a lot faster...

Because NATO (for most key decisions) works by full consensus, adding new members (a process which involved Turkey and Hungary using their leverage for concessions, especially Turkey) does not substantially reduce the leverage of existing members (this is also why Russia's bid to move to the front of the line and be admitted ahead of other Easter European applicants, without a readiness process--the real root, not the fact of expansion into Eastern Europe, of Putin's resentment against NATO--was rejected.)

Can you explain what project is unwinding? It looks to me like Europe is still coming together to resist the danger of Russian invasion. For Nuland, it looks like she had a long career, she had many good roles, she championed protecting Ukraine and there was only one other position for to be promoted to and they promoted someone else. So that seems like a perfect time to leave after a successful career.

In Ukraine, Zelensky purged his military leadership amid significant battlefield defeats including the dysfunctional retreat from the stronghold of Avdiivka. The situation is very unstable and the worst time for influential players like Nuland to retreat from power. It suggests a collapse of the entire project.

Retreating gives more benefits to Ukraine.

If you think anything is defeated, you should look at the facts ( eg. Airplanes downed in the last weeks). Which seems to be more significant to me while f16's are on the way.

Retreating is not defeating :)

Oh boy, by that account Russia should be in rubbles a year ago. Putin even had to kill off his caterer turned warlord, who staged a mutiny and marched with 5k mercenaries on Moscow and the rest of the country just stood by and watched the show.

Victoria Nuland is a red flag. Conspiracy theorists are obsessed with her for some reason. Whenever she is brought up, I stop listening. She's not that important.

What a strange and misleading comment. Nuland is obviously very important and influential in Washington and around the world. She's part of the Kagan family and has been in the State Department for decades, across 6 presidents. Secretary Blinken wrote her a long send-off letter. She just met with senior leadership in Kiev last month.

"She's not that important" = pure gaslighting. She's as important as anyone in Washington and her sudden abdication of power is a significant event.

Conspiracy theories see things when things aren't there.

She had a political career for 30 years and she claimed to retire.

Did you consider that she perhaps just wants to retire? NATO has all the new ( and strong) members that wanted to join.

Seems like a good time like any other to me, additionally she's 63.

Passed the smell test for me.

> Conspiracy theories see things when things aren't there

Exactly. They make outrageously evidence-free statements like "Victoria Nuland isn't important".

Depends what you call "victory". The western priority is preserving sovereign Ukraine, even if it has to concede some land. There is a path to achieve such goal.