Third footnote to the post titled “Guilty as Charged”

Another question arises, which is that if limited wars are intended first and foremost to stop a Russian advance along the Russian periphery, for example in Ukraine, then why is NATO not acting in Ukraine? Aside from throwing money at the problem. Throwing money at a government in Ukraine which does not have the capacity to fight Russia. In other words, why aren’t NATO forces participating in the Ukrainian resistance against Russia inside of Ukraine? The answer is that there are two types of ground forces, as Kissinger noted. For one, there are local forces who deal with limited wars such as the one in Ukraine. And then there are retaliatory forces who participate in total war if a limited war escalates to that level. The reality is that NATO is deficient in both. NATO is deficient in both local forces and retaliatory forces vis-à-vis Russia. Thus, if NATO allocated its retaliatory forces to Ukraine to fight a limited war there, then Russia will escalate and then NATO will not be able to fight with their retaliatory forces inside of smaller NATO countries. In terms of aerial and nuclear forces, there is virtual equilibrium between NATO as a whole and Russia. But in terms of ground forces of both a retaliatory and local nature, Russia has the advantage. Add the balance of power into the mix, which one should note is in Russia’s favor, and you have the current situation in Ukraine and Eastern Europe as a whole. Which then prompts a natural dividing line between Western Europe and Eastern Europe.