Station enough NATO troops in the Baltics to dissuade Russia from even trying. Make it clear that war with NATO also means that NATO will close off the Baltic Sea and the Black Sea, and that Kaliningrad will blocked from any supplies.

Based on ISW's latest map, it appears that Russia is now inside Vovchansk and fighting is taking place in the city proper. It's hard to say why the Russians are so intent on taking it, because it doesn't get them closer to Kharkiv.



Send NATO troops to defend NATO territory.

I mean that's what NATO was supposed to be, right? A defensive alliance to guard against potential soviet aggression. Instead it became an offensive tepid agreement between powers to kinda participate in each others aggressive proxy wars, more prone to dissension.
And again we're still at the point where NATO powers are trying to debate whether to declare war of Russia by sending (uniformed) troops to fight them (directly) as an escalation past our current obvious-but-secret presence and proxy fight.


Anyway its doubtless one aspiration of the current offensive to push Ukrainian artillery out of range of Belgorod and clearing Vovchansk seems like one of the necessary steps. When Russia takes that buffer swathe of the north of Donetsk and is still advancing in the south and east, its the clear prelude to an implosion of the line of everything from dnipro to kharkiv.

How many proxy wars did NATO actually fight over the past 2 decades? Ukraine is an obvious one, even if we still disagree on the genesis and the responsibility for this conflict. But which other proxy wars were fought under the NATO umbrella? The campaign in Libya wasn't a proxy war, it was an overt war. As were Iraq and Afghanistan. Syria was a (disastrous) proxy war, but it wasn't really fought under the NATO umbrella, it was mostly condcuted by the US side it while Europe tried to stay out.



Just for the record: I, for my part, don't endorse Macron's plans for sending ground troops from NATO countries to Ukraine, not at all. That's just Macron being self-important as usual and puffing up. A lot of bark with not a lot of bite behind it.

This post was edited by Black XistenZ on May 13 2024 06:40pm

Not just macron:

https://www.businessinsider.com/nato-member-estonia-seriously-discussing-troops-ukraine-report-2024-5?amp

How much nato involvement was in Syria? It clearly started with proxy war motivations to needle Russia, else we wouldn't givea shit about Assad in the first place. Don't see us intervening in various African wars. Turkey had obvious motivations beyond opposition to Russia, though it did sour their relations. But what was France's excuse?

If this is not the excuse then I don't what it has to be

Clint Eastwood?

Estonia XDXD
Yeah, they're gonna put a ton of boots on the ground and single-handedly change the course of this war, lmao!

Regarding Syria: Assad was in the way of those tacit plans about an oil pipeline to the Mediterranean. So that's a reason for the US to get involved. Another motivation was potentially removing a threat at the doorstep of the closest Middle Eastern ally Israel. And the West imho was driven, at least in some part, by naivety and optimism during the Arab spring. I believe that at least some Western decision-makers genuinely thought that all these countries would turn into liberal democracies. All of these motivations for giving a shit about Assad work independent from his alliance with Russia.