Posted on 08/17/2025 6:23:09 PM PDT by MinorityRepublican
Pre Alaska Witkoff did say that conversations in Moscow talked about tripwires. This was what was envisioned there for Article-5 type of security guarantees.
Tripwires would be a token force in Ukraine. Perhaps a few hundred guys. Their role there is to basically get killed if there is an offensive and their deaths trigger the larger EU response. Of course, the EU wants it to be a US response, but this need not be so and indeed probably can’t be so because of the existence of tactical nuclear weapons (as opposed to strategic).
The overall point is it’s not enough troops to mount an attack into the new Russian oblasts. But their presence represents a tripwire response if there were further Russian attacks.
THAT is what is meant by the Article-5 type guarantees that Russia envisions.
Witkoff has done a great job for Trump from day one, btw.
Ukraine’s mobilization drive has been badly misunderstood, largely due to a failure to correctly interpret the many videos of conscription teams grabbing men off the street. The idea of Ukrainian officials driving around in unmarked vans and press-ganging men at random suggests the idea of a highly extractive state that is mobilizing everyone, but the truth is rather the opposite. Physically abducting conscripts is a very inefficient way to intake personnel, and it’s a method that is only resorted to because the bureaucratic mobilization system is failing. It has been widely reported that many Ukrainian districts are hitting only 20% of their mobilization quotas, and even after passing an intensified mobilization law last year, Ukraine’s intake of new personnel has slowed down. Only a fraction of Ukraine’s conscription summons are answered, and the meat busses that prowl city streets looking for infantry are a poor, half hearted substitute for a functioning personnel system.
In other words, a state that has to send around thugs shoving people into vans is not a state that is recruiting everyone. It is a state that is recruiting almost no one.
And Churchill could have prevented WWII by simply surrendering to Germany before it started.
Not exactly the choice you make it sound like!
And Churchill could have prevented WWII by simply surrendering to Germany before it started.
Uhhh, Churchill became PM in 1940, after Norway and Denmark fell.
Churchill had nothing to do with England declaring war on Germany in 1939. Read a few books and come back.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.