Why Ukraine Proves NATO Is a Failure

Why Ukraine Proves NATO Is a Failure

Show Video

The war in Ukraine is the most  destructive conflict that Europe   has seen since the Second World War- and  it's all NATO's fault, because NATO is weak. No, this video isn't sponsored by the  Russian Ministry of Defense. The fact   is that the invasion of Ukraine is NATO's  greatest failure in its short history,   and it failed because the entire alliance is  a shadow of its former self. The great peace   dividend at the end of the Cold War finally made  Europeans as weak as the Soviets always claimed   they were. Even the United States severely  curtailed its military capabilities. Now,   the peace is over and war is in Europe because  NATO decided to take a thirty year nap.

NATO was originally founded after  the Second World War. Surveying the   destruction in Europe and the rise of  the Soviet Union, the US asked Europe,   “Hey, what if we make the most Chad military  alliance of all time?”, to which Europe replied,   “Yeah that's a great idea and hey, also,  what if you pay for like most of it?” Thus NATO was born out of a desire to ensure peace  in Europe and deter a third, far more catastrophic   world war. The containment and deterrence of  the Soviet Union was a top priority for everyone   who didn't like the idea of turning the world  into a permanent Fallout LARP event. But even   a conventional war with the Soviets would  be catastrophic for Europe, and inevitably   end with many of the continental European  powers becoming yet another Soviet republic. That's why the United States was integral  to the alliance, but this required it to   station a large amount of its forces in Europe  itself. Otherwise it would take months to build   significant military power in Europe, by  which time the Soviet hordes would have   overrun most of the continent. But the alliance  didn't just see the US as a safeguard against  

Soviet invasion, it was also a check against  the resurgence of a different evil altogether. For the better part of, well, its entire history,  Europe has struggled with nationalism. During the   first half of the twentieth century however,  the rise of nationalism across the continent   set the stage for two catastrophic wars. Left  reeling in the wake of the Second World War,  

both the US and the exhausted western  powers feared that from the ashes,   a fresh wave of nationalism would spring up.  Some trilogies are great: Lord of the Rings,   Alien- but other trilogies are crimes against  humanity: The Hobbit, and world wars. Nobody   had any interest in yet another world war  arising from Europe's favorite hobby of   electing a dictator into power and then bashing  your neighbor's face in with a bunch of tanks. The United States took on a form  of Hobbian 'Benevolent Leviathan',   and was seen as a check against the rise of  nationalism in Europe. NATO would make the US   heavily invested in European security, ensuring  it didn't simply lose interest again and piss   off across the pond again like it did for much  of the previous hundred years. Americans, for  

their part, were extremely skeptical in further  involvement in Europe after two world wars,   and isolationism has always run deep in America  due to the security of having two oceans between   itself and the rest of the world. Rome may burn  again tomorrow, but Americans will still be eating   cheeseburgers and chasing bigfoot unless the  barbarians build a fleet of aircraft carriers. But the best way to avoid conflict is for  everyone to get along, in a nice, tight,   little huddle where no one has the room to  reach for a gun. That's why NATO's third goal   was to promote European unity. After two world  wars and centuries of devastating conflicts,   the best and brightest military and political  minds on the continent got together to debate   the future of Europe. After making the  observation that Europe has historically   launched devastating war after devastating  war every 10-20 years or so, someone got the   brilliant idea of “what if we don't anymore?”,  and the goal of European unity was born.

Thus NATO served to create the groundwork for  the European Union, which would ultimately be the   best guarantor of peace. If Europeans could stop  fighting each other- here's looking at you, France   and Britain, and Germany- then another world war  would likely be prevented. Further, European unity   encouraged political integration, a matter of  much concern as Communism spread its tentacles   across war-torn central Europe- and after the  overthrow of the Czech Republic's government by   rebels. Therefore the Soviet Union saw communism  as the only way to ensure its own survival against  

the capitalist west, and thus the stage was  naturally set for conflict between the two blocs. In 1949, NATO was officially  born, and war disappeared forever. Not quite, but to its credit, NATO truly  is the most successful international   alliance of all time. The Delian  League may have protected Europe  

from being overrun by a Persian invasion,  irrevocably changing its entire history,   but it didn't stop the outbreak  of a world-ending nuclear war. NATO's greatest success is ensuring  that the Cold War never turned hot.   Through a combination of containment and  deterrence, NATO was able to ensure that   any conflict between itself and the Soviet  Union would incur costs too unbearable,   or simply not have the seeds it needed  to ferment. Without NATO, a fragmented   Europe would have been torn by the struggle  between capitalist west and communist east,   creating a nightmare of potential powder kegs  that could signal the opening festivities to   the third- and final- world war. NATO's greatest  strength was in presenting a unified face against   Soviet expansionism and political influence, even  if that did mean that occasionally the individual   states would take decidedly undemocratic  measures to silence pro-Communist individuals. Hey, you either get to own  the means of production,   or you get to not live  through a nuclear holocaust.

NATO's second greatest strength  was, well, its strength. Unified,   the North Atlantic Treaty Organization was  far more powerful than any individual state,   and this is what allowed the alliance  to stand against an at-times aggressive   Soviet Union. The alliance was ready to  exact a blood cost from the Soviets for   any push into western Europe, both  by conventional or nuclear means.

But that was tricky given that the alliance's  greatest military power- by a long margin- was   all the way across the ocean. In essence, the  United States was like the Justice League's   Superman to Europe's Batman. Batman is  cooler, often has better story arcs,   and has free healthcare, but when the  Soviets and Darkseid come invading,   you really want Superman out there punching T-62  tanks with his big, dumb super-strong fists.

The challenge for the alliance was that most  of America's firepower was across the sea,   or in other potential hot spots. Sometimes its  military was heavily involved elsewhere- such   as during the Vietnam War- and other times it  was busy liberating South American democracies   from themselves. During the Vietnam War alone,  a significant amount of US firepower was tied up   for nearly two decades, and it was here that  NATO was more important than ever before. By  

presenting a unified front, the western European  powers presented a significant obstacle to the   Soviets even without full US commitment. But things may not have been that way,   which is why NATO's political maneuvering was  also one of its greatest victories. Spain,   for example, could have been a serious chink in  NATO's armor up until it joined the alliance in   1982. But this future was far from certain-  after Spain's Francisco Franco died in 1975,   it was Juan Carlos, king of Spain and  appointed ruler by Franco, who led the   nation through democratic reforms. But the Soviets  had attempted to heavily influence Franco, albeit   without much success given that Franco fought  the communists during the Spanish Civil war.

Had things gone differently, Spain may have been  the western-most member of the Soviet bloc, a move   which would have escalated tensions in Europe to  unfathomable levels. Deft political maneuvering   and the culture of European unity fostered by  NATO helped ensure that this did not come to pass. NATO's unity however also helped to  severely curtail nuclear proliferation,   further adding to its list of successes.  Under Article 5 of the alliance's charter,  

an attack on one member is an attack on  all- and this includes nuclear weapons. The early Cold War was a crazy time, the  world was rebuilding from a catastrophic war,   liberalizing its values, the Beach Boys  were selling Americana around the world,   and the threat of nuclear annihilation  hung over the head of every nation on   the planet. The nuclear attacks on  Hiroshima and Nagasaki sent a very   loud and clear message to every country: the  only way to not get nuked, is to have nukes. Thankfully, the scientific knowledge and  technical expertise to build a nuclear   weapons program made it both very expensive  and extremely hard to develop nuclear weapons,   but that still left it within the scope of many of  the world's leading nations. Working to limit the   spread of nuclear weapons, and reduce the risk  of self-extinction via aggressive stupidity,   the United States brought in countries around  the world under its nuclear umbrella- and NATO   was instrumental in helping that happen. But NATO  also legitimized America's promise to go nuke for   nuke with anyone launching a nuclear weapon  against a non-NATO partner, such as Japan or   South Korea. Without that legitimacy, both of  these nations would rightly question whether  

the United States would truly be willing to trade  Los Angeles for Seoul or Tokyo in a nuclear war.   And the answer is no, absolutely not, but we  would gladly trade the entire state of Florida. With an ironclad commitment to NATO's article  5 though, nations under the American nuclear   umbrella could feel safe and snug in  America's big, strong, radioactive,   nuclear arms, knowing that the US had  the credibility to respond in case of   crisis. This directly helped limit nuclear  proliferation, and thus reduce the risk of   humanity permanently logging off because  it was too stupid to not blow itself up. Averting global nuclear disaster, stopping  Europe's favorite hobby of waging war against   itself, and setting the stage for the EU is  basically going to make you a ringer for the   gold medal in the 'best alliances in history'  category. But despite that, Ukraine has proven   that NATO is a failure, completely biffing  its biggest challenge since the Cold War.

If the early Cold War was a crazy time,  the end of it was even crazier. The entire   world breathed a sigh of relief as the  specter of nuclear annihilation vanished,   Europe's unity took massive steps forward, and  grunge music was destroying the majesty of 80s   hair metal power ballads. Humanity had negotiated  the nuclear minefield that was the Cold War,   with NATO at the forefront. But the moment  that the Berlin Wall fell, so too did NATO   spending. By the fall of the Soviet Union,  NATO defense spending was in free fall,   and it was its European contingent which was the  worst offender by a very long shot. The next war   would be fought with hugs and kind affirmations,  at least if you asked European NATO members busily   slashing defense budgets so they could buy  more croissants and build more discotheques.

The United States also severely curtailed its  defense budget, and sat down leaders from its   entire defense sector for a teary eyed break-up.  Unlike Europe however, the United States was   now the world's sole superpower, which put the  responsibility of upholding the new global order   on its shoulders. Plus, it turns out that shaping  the world in your own image is crazy lucrative. Thus while defense spending plummeted across  NATO, the US and a few other partners maintained a   strong commitment to defense spending. But as the  world entered the 2000s, it was clear that Europe   had become drunk on peace and free healthcare, and  its militaries were in a truly sorry state. While  

just ten years prior, European militaries  were the vanguards of the first Gulf War,   in 2002 Europe struggled to meet the combat  requirements of the new war in the Middle East.   Then, over the course of the next eight years the  continent learned exactly the wrong lesson, though   here it's not alone in its blame- the United  States also got terror-tunnel vision, practically   reshaping its military to fight low intensity  guerrilla wars against terrorists and insurgents   and leaving it completely unprepared for the rise  of China and Russia as new conventional rivals. In 2006, it was clear that the alliance had  allowed its military power to atrophy. Thus  

NATO Defense Ministers collectively agreed to a  commitment of 2% of GDP to be spent on defense   spending. However, this proved a tough sell to the  European people. After all, the Soviets were gone,   Russia was just a big, cuddly, corrupt  teddy bear that gave you cheap gas,   and who would fund free art classes for stray  street dogs if the government spent money on   the military? Unsurprisingly, nations failed to  meet the 2% spending goal. Incredibly though,   even after the invasion of Ukraine by  Russia, still only seven nations meet   this spending goal: the US, UK, Poland,  Estonia, Greece, Latvia, and Lithuania.

We're not going to say that Europe freeloaded  off the US' commitment to defend Europe,   but Europe definitely freeloaded off America's  treaty obligations to defend Europe- a fact which   has over the years brought increasing frustration  for US voters. But the truth is that a stable,   secure Europe is of direct national security  interest for the United States, and America   benefits greatly politically and financially from  a peaceful Europe. Thus US military investments in   European security pay a peace dividend that both  sides of the Atlantic have enjoyed for decades. However, it would be nice to see Europe start  picking up the tab for their own defense. The   Russian invasion of Ukraine showed what many  western defense analysts had known for years:   Europe has allowed its military capabilities  to atrophy to criminal levels. Germany can't   meet NATO rapid response force requirements  without cannibalizing its own military for   spare parts and battle-ready personnel. The  British military has shrunk to its smallest  

size since the Napoleonic wars, and is set to  shrink even further- to a level not seen since   the 1700s. The French military is probably  the best prepared on the continent, but it’s   poorly suited for a modern, high-attrition  campaign such as the current war in Ukraine. In 2021, Analysts Hugo Meijer and Stephen  G. Brooks released an article in the journal   International Security, arguing that Europeans  were incapable of mounting a credible defense of   their continent without direct US support. Their  first claim is that Europe's defense deficiencies  

are so deep that it would require a massive  and protracted effort to fix them. Second,   they argue that while Europe outmatches  Russia in GDP, population, defense spending,   and technology, Russia was still more than a  credible match for a unified Europe. But the   biggest problem is what Brooks and Meijer called  “strategic cacophony” inside Europe. Simply put,   European security experts- at the time- couldn't   agree on what threat to focus on and what  capabilities to prioritize to counter it.

Given all these problems, the article claimed  that Europe was deeply reliant on the United   States as guarantor of their security, and  incapable of providing for their own defense. At the time the article drew intense criticism,   and not just from the Europeans. Meijer and  Brooks argued that the US needed to remain   deeply embedded in European security, and  also drew criticism from Americans. However,   just one year later, Russia invaded Ukraine  and proved that Europe was exactly what they   had predicted it was: uncoordinated, deficient,  and completely reliant on the United States.

And it was Russia's invasion of Ukraine,   and Europe's failure to meet its own  defense requirements, that directly led   to NATO's greatest failure- one that could  still spell disaster for the entire planet. NATO's failure began all the way back in 2013. At  the time, Ukrainian President Viktor Yanukovych   prompted Ukrainians to revolt in what would be  known as the Euromaidan protests. Under the direct  

influence of Russia's Vladimir Putin, Yanukovych  canceled plans to sign a political association and   free trade agreement that would have brought it  closer to the EU and on the pathway to membership.   Instead, Yanukovych opted to pull Ukraine  closer to Russia. To say that this was an   unpopular move would be the understatement of the  century, and the Ukrainian people politely voiced   their displeasure by setting half the country on  fire and getting into street wars with the police. Learn to read a room, Vlad. The Euromaidan protests would  become the Revolution of Dignity,   with President Yanukovych fleeing to Russia  after being ousted from power. The country saw  

brutal street battles between protesters and  the police. Eventually, the revolution would   be victorious- but Russia would take advantage  of the chaos to make its first move on Ukraine.  Russian disinformation agents stoked  fears amongst large segments of the   pro-Russian Crimean population. One such tool was  a documentary claiming that pro-Maidan Ukrainians   had stopped several buses full of anti-Maidan  protesters and killed and tortured many of   them. This stoked fears of the new Ukrainian  government, which Putin would use to aid him  

in the annexation of the Crimean peninsula. On February 22nd and 23rd, Putin convened   an all-night meeting with the chiefs of  his security services to discuss how to   extricate President Viktor Yanukovych from  Ukraine. By the end of the meeting though,   Putin made it clear that Russia needed to act soon  to quote- “return Crimea to Russia”. The GRU and   FSB immediately began dispatching agents  to negotiate with pro-Russian locals and   ensure the creation of well-armed local defense  groups which would support a Russian invasion.  The Crimean government, which operated with a  high degree of autonomy, declared that it would   support the new Kyiv government. In response, a  pro-Russian rally was held in Simferopol where  

the Ukrainian flag was replaced with a Russian  flag, while a pro-Euromaidan rally demanded   the resignation of the Crimean parliament. In  Sevastopol, Russia used criminal elements such   as the Night Wolves motorcycle club to arm and  organize pro-Russian supporters into civil defense   squads, setting the stage for Russia's invasion. On February 27th of 2014, Russian forces carrying   no insignia invaded Crimea and seized the Crimean  parliament building. There, the parliament was   forced to vote in an emergency session to replace  the Prime Minister with a member of the Russian   Unity party, which had received only 4% of the  vote in the latest election. MPs would later tell   the press that Russian troops forbade them from  talking to journalists and took their phones,   and later they found out that most of  them had had their votes cast for them.  Russian President Vladimir Putin denied  accusations that his troops were in Ukraine,   claiming instead that the entire affair was being  organized and executed by Ukrainian separatists.  

However, by summer Crimea was annexed as  a territory of the Russian Federation,   and Russia finally admitted to  having troops on the peninsula.  The international response was swift and...  flaccid. The UN passed a non-binding resolution   with 100 in favor, 11 against, and 58 abstentions  declaring the annexation invalid- sending Russia   the equivalent of a frowny face emoji over text.  Sanctions preventing Russian and Crimean officials   from traveling to Canada, the US, or the EU were  passed, and Japan issued mild sanctions suspending   talks relating to military, space, investment and  visa requirements with Russia. The sanctions were  

largely seen as a joke by the Russian Federation,  with the Russian Duma passing a resolution by   unanimous vote asking the west for all members  of the Duma to be included on the sanctions list.  NATO's failures in Ukraine began with the Russian  annexation of Crimea. While economic sanctions did   have some effect on the Russian economy, they  failed to target Putin or those closest to him   directly. They also were not targeted in their  scope, limiting their impact on Russia's ability   to wage further aggression against Ukraine. Future  sanctions would be a bit more robust, forbiding   the sale of certain dual-use technologies to  Russia that could be used for both civilian and   military applications, seriously hurting Putin’s  ability to provide drones to his armed forces,   for example. However, overall, the sanctions  failed to deter Russia from further aggression. 

NATO's military response was equally flaccid, and  consisted mostly of the alliance's easternmost   members asking for more American presence  in their countries. The Baltic states,   as well as Poland and Romania, saw the writing on  the wall and realized that they were now on the   front line of a new conflict with Russia. Thus,  they demanded permanently stationed brigades on   their territory from NATO- but naturally, only  the US was prepared to meet that requirement.  Poland reached out to the US directly and asked  for protection, with the US deploying two brand   new infantry brigades to Polish bases as well as  strengthening its armored forces in the region.  

Plans for a new forward deployment base in Poland  to house 1,000 US soldiers were quickly finalized,   and Romania followed suit by building  a new military base on the Black Sea   to serve as a forward deployment point for  US troops. Bulgaria partnered with the US   to expand its military bases and bought  tanks and missile systems from US firms,   with Lithuania hosting a rotating US motorized  brigade and buying new US equipment to train with.  While in many ways these decisions  were a boon to the US defense industry,   they also severely strained America's military  and logistics. Americans, rightfully so,   began to question why it was them picking  up the tab for European defense- a sentiment   which President Donald Trump made very clear  as he mulled over removing the US from NATO.  The lack of a credible military deterrent on  NATO's borders allowed Putin to act with near   impunity in his Crimean invasion, as did the  divisiveness amongst NATO's members on Russia   itself. The United States and the Baltic nations,  alongside Poland and Romania, have long called for   the continued containment of Russia as a potential  adversary. But the rest of NATO's European members  

have been extremely reluctant to cooperate  on any measure to contain Russia. Instead,   they all but sabotaged NATO from within. Germany aggressively pursued economic ties   with Russia, working under the false  assumption that close economic ties   would make Russia a more agreeable neighbor.  However, despite repeated warnings from the US,  

Germany basically handed Russia all the  leverage it wanted over it. It not only   helped speed Europe's energy dependence on Russia  through investments in the Nordstream pipeline,   but it actually helped sabotage energy sanctions  against Russia over its invasion of Crimea by   lobbying for their removal. In its hunger for  cheap energy and new markets, Germany did all   it could to hand Russia the keys to Europe. Turkey, France, Italy, and Hungary too scuttled  

NATO plans to mobilize more resources to counter  potential Russian aggression. Seeking closer   financial ties, the four nations feared that  pursuing a containment strategy and clearly   naming Russia as a European security threat would  jeopardize economic relations with Russia. Turkey,   now a thorn in NATO's side under President  Erdogan's rule, even went against NATO policy   and purchased air defense systems from  Russia. As a result, the US kicked Turkey   out of the F-35 program, resulting in chilly  relations that persist to this day. Indeed,  

Turkey has since been walking a tight rope between  its commitment to NATO and its ties to Russia.  Right when it mattered most, the NATO alliance  was too busy enriching itself to effectively   deter Russia. The failure of NATO to react  strongly to Russia's invasion of Ukraine   directly opened the door for 2022's invasion of  Ukraine- but this larger invasion would prove   NATO had catastrophically failed yet again. The US warned for months that Russia could   be considering an invasion of Ukraine, but was  met with consternation from most of the European   powers. Like in 2014, most European nations  didn't wish to antagonize Russia and disrupt  

lucrative energy and business ties- leaving the  US and the easternmost NATO members alone in their   warnings that a Russian invasion was becoming  increasingly probable. Even when it became   painfully obvious that an invasion was coming,  western Europe was reluctant to believe it.  Once more, NATO's disparate agendas ensured  that Putin would be free to act- and thanks   to the lobbying of many NATO members, Russia  believed it had great leverage over NATO in the   form of energy to prevent it from responding.  Exactly when NATO should have been unified   and immediately delivering military aid to a  Ukraine about to be under siege, the alliance   was too disjointed to tie its own shoe laces. And this aid could have turned the tide of   history, had it been provided pre-invasion- or  even after it. A significant buildup of western  

military hardware in Ukrainian hands would  have served as a powerful deterrent to Putin,   as would have the promise of immediate and strong  sanctions. While those sanctions would eventually   come around, they only did so after the invasion  had begun, when they should have been threatened   before it was launched in order to deter Putin. As the invasion began though, NATO hesitated to   send any military hardware for fear that the  Ukrainian government would collapse under a   fierce Russian onslaught. This was back when  the west was still drinking Russia's kool-aid,   and believed it was a capable combined arms  power simply because it put on a fancy,   choreographed exercise once a year or so across  the border from the Baltic countries. However,   this highlights yet another of NATO's failures. After the annexation of Crimea, the US and   a few NATO partners undertook a training and  restructuring program with the Ukrainian military.  

What should have happened however is a full  commitment by NATO to bring the Ukrainian military   up to par with western militaries- well, the ones  that actually work anyways- including a continued   replenishment of its old Soviet equipment with  modern western counterparts. This, even more   than sanctions, would have been the strongest  deterrent against further Russian aggression. When it became clear that Ukraine would hold,  talks began to supply Ukraine with the heavy   equipment it needed to defend itself from  Russia. And continuing its long tradition of   doing everything possible to help Russia win, NATO  once more dropped the ball. Spurred on by fears of   an imaginary escalation, NATO refused to provide  Ukraine with large amounts of heavy equipment-   to which Poland said “Hold my Pierogi” and sent as  much heavy equipment as it could anyways. Even the   US appeared timid about hurting Putin's feelings  by stopping his genocide of the Ukrainian people,   as it took months to send a limited amount of  advanced weapons such as HIMARS to Ukraine. 

But it wouldn't stop there, because while NATO  gradually opened up its armories to Ukraine,   it was like pulling teeth. Every single shipment  of new weapons had to be 'hemmed' and 'hawed'   over by each NATO member, carefully deliberated  over the course of weeks and months to gauge just   how much of Putin's feelings it would hurt.  Tanks, the weapons Ukraine needed the most,   would take almost an entire year to  begin to consider sending to Ukraine,   and even then only after Germany gaslit the entire  alliance over Leopard 2s and then just straight   up lied and moved the goalposts three times, were  the tanks finally approved to be sent to Ukraine. 

By the way, feel free to exclude Poland and  the Baltic states from all of this- if they   had been in charge of NATO, they would have  given Ukraine every single tank in NATO's   inventory on day 2 of the invasion. Poland  would have probably personally driven the   tanks straight to the front lines itself. It's exactly this disharmony amongst the   alliance that created NATO's biggest failure in  the alliance's history, and is only compounded   by the absolutely terrible state of its military  and military industrial capacity. Heavy weapons   should have been provided from the moment  that the assault on Kyiv was defeated,   and the decision to slowly trickle them  in makes NATO directly responsible for the   deaths of thousands of Ukrainian service  members and civilians both. Even when it   became clear Russia was engaging in a campaign  of war crimes against Ukrainian civilians, NATO   refused to move quicker on weapons deliveries. But NATO's terrible readiness for conventional  

conflict is also wrapped up in its massive Ukraine  failure pie. While Europe was on a peace bender,   its militaries and defense industries atrophied-  the fact that the entirety of NATO has been   unable to out-resupply Russia inside  of Ukraine is absolutely criminal.  Perplexingly, NATO's European members have even  further slowed deliveries of heavy weapons to   Ukraine by refusing to send from their own active  inventories. When the question of sending Leopard   2s to Ukraine came up, Europe collectively  scrambled to see what Leopards it thought it   could afford to send- coming up with a token force  of around 80 tanks. To date, very few of those 80   promised tanks have actually been sent though. And here we have to ask, why? Why so few tanks?  

Ask the western Europeans and they'll say that  they need their tanks for their own defense,   to which we would respond with: defense from what?  What war exactly does western Europe think it   needs tanks to defend from, when no power on earth  save the Untied States has the logistics to even   reach western Europe, and Russia is such a failure  of a military power that it's stuck in the east   of Ukraine. If anyone needs tanks, it's NATO's  eastern members, who are the shield Russia would   have to punch through just to get to Germany. Unless Russia learns how to grow T-14s and T-90s   on trees, and then teleport them a thousand  miles from Russia into the heart of France,   we're pretty sure that western Europe needs its  tanks right now like the ocean needs water. And   the United States isn't off the hook either, as it  alone has hundreds of armored vehicles in storage   that could easily be provided to Ukraine- many of  them already in prepositioned stocks in Europe,   specifically placed there to fight Russia. Make no mistake, Russia is fully committed   in Ukraine and completely incapable of threatening  the rest of Europe. Russian KIA were estimated at   60,000 in February, by now this number is  estimated to have reached as high as 100k.  

Two to three times that number are estimated to  have been wounded. The Russian military is in   such a sorry state, that it's even now beginning  another round of quiet mobilization, and blocked   the Wagner Group from recruiting in prisons so  that the regular Russian army could do it instead.  And still NATO acts as if there is a  credible threat to its European members   that it needs to defend from, refusing  to open up its active inventories to   Ukrainian requests for tanks and other aid. The Russian invasion of Ukraine has been NATO's   greatest failure- from a failure to respond  to Russia's annexation of Crimea in 2014,   a failure to properly prepare for conventional  war, a failure to deter the 2022 invasion of   Ukraine, and a failure to quickly end the war  by providing Ukraine with large amounts of badly   needed equipment. Instead of the decisive action  needed to stop Vladimir Putin dead in his tracks,  

the NATO alliance's response has been  glacial, disjointed, and inadequate.  And NATO's failures have only opened up the  door to further conflicts around the world   of the exact type the alliance was initially  determined to deter from ever happening. While   western sanctions against Russia have given  China a slight pause in its ambition to retake   Taiwan by force, NATO's flaccid military  response has only emboldened it to act,   knowing that Taiwan would be much harder to supply  in the midst of a full-scale war than Ukraine is. 

An invasion of Taiwan would disrupt the global  semiconductor market, throwing the entire global   economy into a tailspin. A successful invasion  however would then place an authoritarian China   hostile to democratic ideals in charge of the  most important resource of the 21st century,   with Taiwan producing over 60% of the world's  computer chips and 90% of the most advanced   ones critical for cutting edge technologies. To  prevent China from holding the western-led liberal   world order hostage through chip embargos,  decisive action and unity is needed from   the only international alliance capable  of stopping the Chinese Communist Party.  And right now the odds of that happening  aren't looking too good, as the most   successful international alliance in history,  made up of the richest nations in history,   struggles to win a war in its own backyard. Now go check out Putin's New Major Problem  

For Russian Military Revealed, or  click this other video instead!

2023-05-18 22:41

Show Video

Other news