Why Russia can't attack NATO after Ukraine war is over - NATO is already quickly ramping up capabilities in Europe - and an end to the war will free up Ukraine and its allies as much as Russia

Skip to Contents - or click on vertical column of dashes to the left on laptops.

First for background for any of those who haven’t seen it , do check out my:

That helps explain how huge NATO’s technological advantage is over Russia.

It has quotes from Admiral Radakin who heads the UK defence and General Petreaus explaining how safe we are for any of us in NATO countries.

Here is General Petreaus - when the US allowed UK to give permission to Ukraine to use its stormshadow missiles against targets in Russia, General Petraeus was one fo the few to assure us that Putin will NOT attack any NATO country and will NOT use nukes.

We’ll see what Admiral Radakin said at the end of this post.

Also since many of the scared people worry about a world war - no that’s not what it’s about. See my:

With that background, my aim here is to help scared people to understand why we get reports that seem to claim that Russia could challenge NATO. They often hit the news - while experts that say the opposite don’t.

These reports are

• often based on implausible assumptions.

• often focus on only one side of the case.

I start this article with some questions you can ask when you see such a report to help fact check to discover that it’s implausible or unbalanced.

So why do they do this, why do they claim that Russia could attack NATO?

It’s not to scare us.

They do it

• to prepare the military and keep it strong

• by making sure it can handle even the mos impossible scenarios, they make sure they are ready for anything.

They often use reports like this as a basis for military exercises which then can be used to demonstrate to other countries

• how strong NATO is

• to deter anyone from even thinking of attacking NATO.

Then I’ll go on to look at how Europe has Trump-proofed NATO and how Ukraine’s defence doesn’t depend on US support any more.

Then circle back to how safe NATO is.

So here are some questions you can ask to help detect if a report is imbalanced/

I did this in response to a Danish report but there have been many such.

How to check for balance in a report claiming Russia can rebuild after the war to challenge NATO - tend to focus only on benefits to Russia of ending the war and not benefits to Ukraine or Europe

Here are some things to check when you see such a report:

• If it says the Russian defense industrial base will no longer need to provide for the war in Ukraine which they claim gives a huge advantage to Russia
  
  Does it mention that:

  • the European and Ukrainian defense industrial base also no longer need to provide for the war when it’s over

  • this will benefit Ukraine itself, which like East Germany was one of the main defense industrial bases for the Soviet Union making ICBMs, tanks and aircraft carriers - it is ramping up hugely in its own defense production and will be a major arms exporter after the war

  • Europe is also developing far more intergrated self contained capability too with a big emphasis on that in the EU not just NATO. |
    Understanding the EU’s New Defense Industrial Strategy
    

• If it assumes that if Russia attacked NATO it would lead to a long prolonged war like the one in Ukraine and highlights issues with sustaining production for ammunition for a long war without US support
  
  Does it mention:

  • the huge technological advantage NATO has especially in the air with its F-35s as well as with its long range high precision missiles that are hard to stop

  • that these mean any war would likely last hours to days, not months before Russia gives up
    

• If it talks about Russia’s over a million strong army which will be freed up to attack a NATO country
  
  Does it mention:

  • the 800,000 strong Ukrainian army - the only modern army with a proven ability to stop Russia in Ukraine - even with far less capable weapons than the most modern equipment NATO has

  • the huge advantage in technology NATO enjoys

  • that Ukraine’s allies hold back the Tomahawk cruise missile (range 2,400 km) and the F-35 fighter jets (almost invisible to Russian radar) because they will make Ukraine too capable in its fight with Russia - but any NATO country automatically has those on day 1.

  • that Ukraine’s allies are slow at providing air defences - NATO’s Patriot is very effective at protecting Ukraine - but its allies still have many Patriot systems in storage that they haven’t given to Ukraine - these would be available right away to any NATO country attacked by Russia

  • how very weak the Russian air defences have been - one of the reasons Ukraine’s allies don’t want to give Ukraine the tomahawks is because they would go straight through Russia’s air defences and again make Ukraine too powerful in their view. Ukraine’s own drones, many even still propellor driven - regularly hit oil refineries deep in Russia and other targets - Russia hasn’t been able to stop them even when the drones need to fly for hours through Russian air space to reach their targets

  • The example of Kursk oblast shows that Russia can’t even push Ukrainian occupiers out of Ukraine
    

• If it says that NATO would be stuck in debate and indecision if Russia attacks a small country like Estonia
  
  Does it mention:

  • the work NATO has done to incease the size of its automatic response force which is now called the Allied Response Force

  • The steadfast dart exercise involves 10,000 soldiers resonding rapidly to an emergency - and these don’t include US soldiers as they can’t get to Europe as fast as European soldiers

  • that NATO will have 300,000 soldiers in total pre-committed to respond if needed to any Article 5 situation

  • that if Ukraine joins NATO, some of Ukraine’s 800,000 battle hardened soldiers could be part of that automatic response

  • Ukraine’s soldiers might also be available as a close partner with an arrangement similar to article 5 with its European allies

• If it talks about Russia rapidly increasing its war fighting capacity once the Ukraine war is over
  
  Does it mention

  • that Russia has major problems with stagflation and the more the war continues the tougher its economic problems

  • Russia will need to transition to a civilian economy once the war is over or it faces more and more stagflation going forward

  • Because of the war it has a significantly smaller working force than before it started and a significant % of its economy is used for making weapons that don’t benefit its citizens

  • Ukraine will have the economic support of its allies but China is the only one of Russia’s partners with the ability to give it significant economic support, and China is not likely to do that as they are not close allies and China has tried to position itself as neutral in the war

• If it says that Putin will have an ambition to start another similar war once this one is over
  
  Does it mention that:

  • Putin only invaded Ukraine because he expected the war to be over faster than with Crimea in 2014 and more easily

  • Putin thought the war would be over in 10 days and that he would have control of all of Ukraine at the end of the war.

  • He could never think that he could succeed similarly in a war against NATO.

• If it says that China will pivot to support Russia to rebuild its economy and rearm
  
  Does it mention that:
  

  • Chinese trade with Russia is only a sixth of the total trade with EU and USA

  • China depends on low price grain especially wheat from Ukraine and was badly impacted by Russia’s grain embargo

When you keep all that in mind - about the only kind of war Russia might do after the Ukraine war is over is an invasion of a weak neighbour that Russia feels it can take over in a few days without much build up of military. About the only country like that is Georgia. It can’t do it with Moldova and Transnistria because it can only get to Transnistria by flying over Ukrainian airspace or by sailing up the Danube.

So why do we get reports saying that Russia could attack NATO? - because the military’s job is to keep us safe - so they overprepare - even for things that are impossible

We get reports from time to time claiming that once the Ukraine war is over, that Russia will continue on a war footing despite its damaged economy and rapidly ramp up its military and that in a few years time it would be able to attack the Baltic States or even tackle a larger war with NATO. Also claims that Putin would want to do that.

This is in response to a Danish report but there have been many such.

The Danish report reads a bit like the scenarios military leaders use for making up exercises to train soldiers but doesn't make sense in the real world.

The idea is that if they prepare for anything they can think of, even impossible things, they will be well prepared if they need to respond to a real world incident.

This is not a military exercise. It is a report to help the military preopare for the future, but it’s rather similar.

Impossible scenario where China pivots to support Russia and loses interest in trade with US and Europe - beyond incredible

One of its “worst case” scenarios is

• China pivots to strongly support Russia and loses interest in keeping good relations with the US and Europe.

This is never going to happen

• China does six times as much trade with US and Europe than with Russia.

• Only 3.2% of Chinese exports are to Russia.

• China depends on Ukraine for low cost wheat and other grains and has never supported the war.

That’s not their only scenario but it gives a flavour of the report.

It has many other vastly implausible scenarios in them.

Applying these questions to the Danish report

So now let’s use these questions to look at the Danish report

Here is the ISW summary of the Danish report, one of many like these:

QUOTE STARTS

[ONLY PRESENTS ONE SIDE OF THE ARGUMENT, DOESN'T LOOK AT THE MANY WAYS EUROPE BENEFITS MILITARILY FROM THE END OF THE WAR AND IS ALREADY RAMPING UP]

Denmark's Defense Intelligence Service (DDIS) assessed that Russia may have the capabilities to launch a full-scale war against NATO in the next five years

The intelligence assessment notes that Russia is rebuilding its military to fight NATO on an equal footing, aided by financial and material support from the People's Republic of China (PRC), North Korea, and Iran. The intelligence assessment states that Russia's willingness to risk war with NATO may increase if European countries do not simultaneously build up their military capabilities in response to Russian capacity building efforts.

…

The DDIS assessment outlines a timeline for Russia's growing military threat in the event of an end of hostilities in Ukraine: Russia could wage a local war against a neighboring state other than Ukraine within six months; Russia could credibly threaten NATO countries in the Baltic region in two years; and Russia could be prepared for a large-scale war in Europe, assuming NATO does not rearm at the same pace as Russia, in five years.

https://www.understandingwar.org/backgrounder/russian-offensive-campaign-assessment-february-12-2025

But now look at the report itself

Implausible “worst case” assumption in the Danish report that China pivots to support Russia and no longer cares about trade with Europe or the USA

The report turns out to use an implausible assumption that China will decide to support the Russian defence industry to help Russia to rebuild it after the war is over.

First, it says that China sees its relations with the West as important.

China is still not prepared to openly supply military equipment for Russia’s war in Ukraine for fear of triggering extensive Western economic sanctions.

China still believes that its relations with the West are important and will try to balance its foreign policy to maintain trade and scientific relations. Cooperation between China and Russia is deepening and expanding.

https://www.fe-ddis.dk/globalassets/fe/dokumenter/2024/intelligenceoutlook.pdf

Says it is highly unlikely that they develop any kind of binding alliance with mutual security guarantees

However, it will also be fraught with distrust because China and Russia have conflicting economic and political interests and ambitions, including in Central Asia and the Arctic.

Consequently, it is highly unlikely that their relationship – even in the long term – will develop into a binding alliance with mutual security guarantees. As a result of its dependence on China, Russia will increasingly be forced to cater to Chinese interests, even in areas where Russia has previously been reluctant, such as Chinese presence in the Arctic.

https://www.fe-ddis.dk/globalassets/fe/dokumenter/2024/intelligenceoutlook.pdf

Says that Western sanctions have challenged Russia’s defence industry.

The war in Ukraine challenges Russia’s defence industry to keep up with battlefield losses. Western sanctions have made it difficult for Russia to adjust its economy and the capacity of its defence industry to replace combat losses. Russia is purposefully trying to circumvent the sanctions in order to address supply chain and other challenges caused by the sanctions.

https://www.fe-ddis.dk/globalassets/fe/dokumenter/2024/intelligenceoutlook.pdf

But then after giving all those reasons why China is not likely to pivot to support Russia’s miltiary and economy, it explores a “what if”, what if China decides that its trade with the West no longer balances the political costs. It might then pivot to supporting Russia.

If, at some point, China realizes that the benefits of trade with the West no longer outweigh the political costs, China will be much more likely to see an overall advantage in entering into a closer and open partnership with Russia with a military dimension. It is highly likely that such a possibility will be in Russia’s interest. If the two countries forge even closer ties by establishing an alliance, it will pose significant security challenges for the West.

…

A deeper Chinese-Russian partnership could mean that the countries commit to lending each other military assistance. In that case, China would start supplying large quantities of military equipment and ammunition to Russia, no longer taking into account the risk of Western sanctions. If this were to happen, it would highly likely boost Russia’s war efforts. Chinese support would also enable Russia to accelerate the modernization of its conventional military forces, enabling them to pose a threat to the West

Extremely implausible that China pivots to Russia because only 3.22% of China’s exports are to Russia while 32.7% of Russia’s exports are to China

But this is extremely implausible. The reason is that though China is economically important to Russia, in the other direction Russia is of little economic importance to China.

Only 3.22% of China’s export trade is with Russia.

It’s top trade partner is the United States with 12.8%. That’s $436 billion out of a total of $3.42 trillion. It also has a lot of trade with Western Europe.

https://oec.world/en/profile/country/chn

Now look at Russia’s trading partners. 32.7% of its export trade is with China. That’s $129 billion dollars out of a total of $394 billion

https://oec.world/en/profile/country/rus

This is a list from Wikipedia:

• List of largest trading partners of China [Wikipedia]

Notice that the EU plus USA combine 785.8 + 688.3 = 1474.1.

That’s six times the Russian total trade of 244.8 1474.1/244.8

Then if you add South Korea, Japan and Taiwan which are aligned with the West, that’s an extra 328.1 + 308.3 + 293.0 = 929.4.

The top one there is ASEAN which combines together the economies of: Brunei, Cambodia, Indonesia, Laos, Malaysia, Myanmar, Philippines, Singapore, Thailand, and Vietnam.

ASEAN

That’s 982.3 from them.

It’s beyond incredible that China would prioritize trade with Russia over trade with the US and EU, never mind the likely adverse affects on some of its other trading partners too. Russia is just not very important to China economically.

China also depends on Ukrine for low price wheat and other grains - with risk of price rises during the Black Sea blockades

Also, though Ukraine doesn’t figure in the list of top Chinese trading partners - it does depend on Ukraine for low price grains, especially wheat, so for that particular commodity China wants to keep on good terms with Ukraine.

China was the top destination for Ukrainian grain, in 2024, 8 million tons or about 24% of its total exports

https://www.cnbc.com/2023/08/03/china-needs-ukraine-for-food-and-could-save-the-black-sea-grain-deal-russia.html

This was early in the war with Ukraine when Russia was blockading the Ukrainian exports of wheat

“China is the biggest buyer of Ukrainian grain and so with the breakdown of the Black Sea Grain Initiative, the pressures on Beijing are going to be extreme in terms of food price inflation,” David Riedel, founder of Riedel Research Group, said in an interview with CNBC.

“They may have been stockpiling a little bit ahead of the breakdown in that agreement but that’s a stockpile of weeks not months,” he said. “I would be very concerned about food price inflation in China,” Riedel added.

“China hopes that all relevant parties will intensify dialogue and consultation and meet each other halfway,” Zhang said during a U.N. Security Council meeting chaired by U.S. Secretary of State Antony Blinken.

https://www.cnbc.com/2023/08/03/china-needs-ukraine-for-food-and-could-save-the-black-sea-grain-deal-russia.html

So this idea that China would pivot to support Russia in its economic reconstruction and military build up is implausible to the point of impossible.

These reports are often intended to encourage support of NATO - no real risk of NATO weakening

This is looking forward to the end of this blog post, where we are headed.

We’ll go into this in detail at the end of the article.

Part of the reason for these reports is to encourage their countries to continue to support NATO. But there isn't any real risk of NATO weakening

• NATO is already in the process of strengthening itself hugely.

• With Biden’s support, NATO “Trump proofed” the supplies to Ukraine which are now done via NSATU, an organization with headquarters in Wiesbaden, Germany.

• Trump is now completely out of the loop and has nothing to do with organizing supplies to Ukraine except for sending the ones supplied by the US

As well as all that all the NATO countries are rapidly increasing funding and most already are at over 2% of their GDP on defence.

The situation in Ukraine is also very different from spring 2024.

Now,

• Ukraine is able to pay for 55% of its own military through the $2 billion a month fund secured against interest on the Russian Foreign Reserves added to what it already had

• 25% is from Europe

• 20% is from the US

That’s according to an interview with EU chief diplomat Kaja Kallas who is vice president of the EU to Von der Leyen and High Representative of the European Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy.

She says that Europe can continue to support Ukraine no matter what the US does.

It’s a similar picture for NATO defense. It doesn’t acutally depend on the US for a rapid article 5 response - the US soldiers were never going to be first to reach the front line and were only a small % of it.

Europe has now transitioned to the Allied Response Force which is

• 300,000 in full strength

• and can send 10,000 or more anywhere rapidly in response to an emergency as a spearhead.

All this is automatic - the days when NATO countries would have to deliberate to decide how to respond to a criss are long gone. Countries can of course add to those numbers but the 300,000 is pre-authorized and automatic if needed.

So - in response to the Ukraine invasion - NATO is strengthening itself hugely.

Also the transition from Biden to Trump has been a stimulus for this and it is ready to take over from the US leadership of NATO and has already done so.

Biden, Europe and NATO were concerned that Trump might be erratic in his support of Ukraine or NATO. So they worked together to ensure that it works without him.

Trump is no longer the effective leader of NATO.

The Danish report doesn’t go into that level of detail but it does talk about how Europe has strengthened itself.

Danish report says correctly that the European Defence production capacity increased hugely

The Danish report also talks about how the European defense production capacity has increased hugely:

For Europe, armament is currently mainly about meeting Ukraine’s specific defence needs to combat Russia, such as artillery ammunition, air defence and drones. But it is also about Europe’s own capability to respond to the military threat posed by Russia. The increased demand for military equipment means that the defence industrial capacity has significantly grown. During 2023 and 2024, the Western defence industry significantly ramped up production, although the weapons and arms production capabilities are currently unable to meet demands.

DDIS give this chart for production of shells - it shows how Europe has hugely ramped up its capabilities. This is not accidentally. It did it as a deliberate initiative to improve its capabilities.

See page 15.

QUOTE Production figures for 152mm and 155mm artillery shells used in some of the most widely used Russian and Western artillery systems. The warring parties are trying to increase the production of artillery shells. It is likely that Russia is often firing around 10-20,000 shells a day

The EU is now able to produced half as many shells as Russia - and the European shells are far more precise than the Russian ones.

This isn’t accidental, it’s part of a major initiative by Europe to increase its defense spending, as well as to make it more self-sufficient.

This is from 2024

https://www.bruegel.org/policy-brief/european-defence-industrial-strategy-hostile-world

From March 2024:

QUOTE STARTS

This week, European Commission (EC) President Ursula von der Leyen unveiled the EU’s first-ever defense industrial strategy. This is the EU’s attempt to move on from its initial emergency responses to Russia’s invasion and to improve European defense industrial readiness for the long term.

….

More than three-quarters of the defense acquisitions by EU member states between the start of Russia’s invasion and June 2023 were made from outside the EU, with the United States alone representing 63 percent. But buying from third countries involves minimal European technology and intellectual property content and poses a risk to local skills and knowledge. It can also be harder to justify before European taxpayers who are asked to accept higher defense spending. The strategy envisions that by 2030, at least 50 percent of member states’ procurement budget (60 percent by 2035) should go to EU-based suppliers and that at least 40 percent of defense equipment should be procured in a collaborative manner.

https://carnegieendowment.org/posts/2024/03/understanding-the-eus-new-defense-industrial-strategy?lang=en

Danish report says if NATO is unable to maintain military superiority over Russia - that Russia may attack NATO - but this is another implausible scenario

The Danish report seems to contradict itself. It says that Rusisa will become more and more willing to use military force against NATO if it believes NATO is unable to maintain its miltiary superiority - or doesn’t present a united front.

Russia's increased willingness to accept risk when confronting NATO countries will grow even further as its conventional military power continues to increase. This also means that the military threat from Russia will increase over the coming years, even though there is no threat of a regular military attack on Denmark at present. In particular, Russia will become more willing to use military force against NATO countries if it believes that NATO either is unable to maintain its military superiority, does not respond to Russia’s military activities or no longer presents a united front.

But NATO is vastly ahead of Russia. We can see this from the way that Biden for instance won’t even consider sending tomhawk cruise missiles to Ukraine because with a range of 2,400 km, he judged them as too powerful - they would let Ukraine win too quickly essentially.

He wouldn’t consider sending the F-35 fighter jets which would give Ukraine almost instant air superiority over all of occupied Ukraine and indeed over Russia as well if they flew that far.

NATO is so ahead of Russia in technology that both NATO and Russia have come to s strange kind of agreement with each other than certain things should never be given to Ukraine becuase they will make Ukraine too powerful and make it too easy for Ukraine to win the war.

This is a cause of endless frustration in Ukraine.

But if that is true - as I think everyone would agree it is - why would Russia attack NATO?

The Danish reprot doesn’t look at this technological superiority of NATO equipment.

But it does say that Russia will find it hard to replace the equipment it’s lost.

But then says Russia will find it hard to replace equipment lost in the war

But then it continues saying that in the longer term it will be difficult for Russia to replace equipment lost in the war:

In the longer term, however, it will be difficult for Russia to mobilize resources to fully replace equipment lost in the war in Ukraine. In addition, it will be particularly challenging to provide sufficient combat equipment for the new units. If the intensity of the war in Ukraine continues at its current pace, Russia will struggle to rebuild its conventional military capabilities to pre-invasion levels

The war has had a huge impact on Russia’s stockpiles. Especially it’s lost vast numbers of:

• tanks

• howitzers and artillery

• fighter jets

• airborne command units

• warships

• air defence systems

It’s mainly able to continue because of large numbers of all of those from the Soviet Union. But it’s much harder for the far smaller Russia to produce those things than it was for the Soviet Union.

Oryx maintains an open source list of equipment lost. It' uses individual photographs of most of the tanks and other larger equipment lost and is likely very reliable on the larger items - though not complete (some tanks are so destroyed that there are no recognizable remains especially after the more powerful glide bombs.

https://www.oryxspioenkop.com/2022/02/attack-on-europe-documenting-equipment.html

Russia will have major economic problems when the war ends transitioning to peace - with problems of stagflation that will get worse the longer the war continues

The Danish report assumes that Russia will focus on rebuilding its military once the war is over.

Also would Russia really keep at war-time levels of spending on defense once the war is over, with nobody to fight and with a major problem of stagflation?

It’s economy is doing remarkably well so far. It can sustain the war, but the problem is that the longer the war continues, the harder it is for Russia to transition to a peacetime economy once it is over.

QUOTE STARTS

The structure of Russia’s market economy is steadily losing its flexibility under the weight of war and a centralized decisionmaking system that prioritizes control over dynamism. Subsidized sectors of the economy, insulated from interest rate fluctuations, are expanding rapidly. Beyond the military-industrial complex and its affiliates, preferential loans now underpin agriculture and real estate development as well. Meanwhile, the high key interest rate has significantly reduced corporate profits by driving up borrowing costs. Companies with heavy debt burdens face a dramatically increased risk of bankruptcy.

…

Despite revenue shortfalls, the 2025 federal budget includes a litany of extravagant projects, such as the construction of a high-speed rail link between Moscow and St. Petersburg and increased funding for import substitution in aviation. These initiatives suggest a government still behaving as though the economy is on steroids, even as the stimulative effects have largely dissipated.

Russia’s economic future beyond 2025 looks troubling. On the surface, economic growth and low unemployment create an illusion of stability for the country’s new economic model. However, this model is already confronting three fundamental limitations: a shortage of labor, exhausted production capacities, and stagnating export revenues due to sanctions. The storm of government spending is sustaining the current state of affairs, but it cannot address the chronic problems that have long plagued the Russian economy. The sanctions regime—partially mitigated by China, India, and other Asian countries—only serves to reinforce these old ailments. The transactional costs associated with sanctions weigh heavily on the entire economy.

Each passing month intensifies the pressure. The Kremlin is approaching a tipping point when the social contract between the state and the people will inevitably shift. Russians are increasingly being asked to accept rising inequality and a decline in quality of life in exchange for short-term stability and symbolic pride in the idea of a “fortress nation.” But even this compromise is becoming less and less sustainable.

A sudden collapse akin to the 1990s is unlikely: the government still has the resources to maintain a minimum level of order and control. However, we are already witnessing a largely irreversible turn toward economic stagnation. Continued reliance on the military sector and a mobilization-driven model will trap Russia in a “stagnation trap” characterized by low growth and chronic internal imbalances.

https://carnegieendowment.org/russia-eurasia/politika/2024/12/russia-economy-difficulties?lang=en

The Russian economy is increasingly dependent on the war and this means removing the crutch for its economy could cause major problems for Russia.

For now the Russian economy looks strong to ordinary Russians able to earn large amounts from the war economy.

QUOTE STARTS

Many Russians have clearly benefited financially from the war. Military contracts have proved particularly lucrative for the country’s business elite, while the departure of Western companies has created vacant niches for Russian companies to fill.

Ordinary Russian citizens have been able to earn unprecedented sums of money by enlisting in the military, with the families of soldiers killed or wounded in Ukraine receiving substantial payments. Those working in factories servicing the war effort have also seen salaries increase as much as five times amid surging demand and labor scarcity. Overall, the invasion of Ukraine has enabled millions of Russians to pull themselves out of poverty.

The economic benefits enjoyed by a wide range of social groups in Russia as a result of the war have helped foster pro-war sentiment and bolster support for the Putin regime. Ending the invasion of Ukraine would therefore potentially weaken the position of the authorities and fuel instability. This creates further incentives to continue the war.

https://www.atlanticcouncil.org/blogs/ukrainealert/russias-economy-is-overheating-but-putin-cannot-change-course/

But this can’t continue indefinitely.

Putin faces a dilemma - if he continues the war it’s not clear his economy can continue to sustain it indefinitely. But if he arranges a settlement, again he risks plunging Russia into an economic crisis by ending the war and its crutch for the economy of Russia. The longer the war continues, the more Russia depends on the war time conditions economically making this problem harder to solve.

The current state of the Russian economy is far from critical but it does present Putin with a dilemma. He currently appears intent on continuing the war indefinitely while hoping to outlast the West and exhaust Ukraine. Alternatively, he could seek to move toward a settlement of some kind. However, there is a very real danger that either option could end up plunging Russia into a serious economic crisis.

If Putin opts to maintain his uncompromising push for an historic victory in Ukraine, it is not clear that Russia has the resources to wage a prolonged war on the present scale. In this scenario, current warning signs such as rising inflation and labor shortages could eventually become major problems. If he seeks a settlement and withdraws the Keynesian crutch of today’s vastly inflated military spending, the economic repercussions could be dire. The Russian economy is not yet close to collapse, but it is increasingly dependent on wartime conditions and faces growing risks of overheating.

https://www.atlanticcouncil.org/blogs/ukrainealert/russias-economy-is-overheating-but-putin-cannot-change-course/

Implausible that Putin wants to start another war after this one - unless very confident he can win quickly

These reports often suggest that Putin’s main objective once the Ukraine war is over is to start another war as soon as possible. That is pretty much how the Danish report goes.

There may be some situations where Russia would want to restart the war.

If Russia is able to end the war in a way that puts Ukraine in a very weak position - he might resume the war thinking he can win large areas quickly.

However Putin would likely think long and hard before restarting a war like the one he is caught up in right now.

He’d likely hesitate to resume this war if he had no big new advantage.

It’s the same with war with another adversary. He’d only do it if he thought he could win easily.

Remember Putin gave up on Assad in Syria and let the regime collapse.

In the same way he could give up on Ukraine at some point.

Putin only invaded Ukraine because he expected to take over all of Ukraine in 10 days. This war of getting on for 3 years already is not going to encourage him to start another similar war.

See my:

He could threaten smaller countries that are not part of NATO. The main one there is Georgia as Moldova is shielded by Ukraine.

Although everyone assumes that he would restart a war like this if he can end it on terms unfavorable to Ukraine - even that may be questionable because would he really?

But that’s academic since there’s no way Ukraine stops fighting in a situation where Russia can put them at a disadvantage as for the Minsk 1 and 2 accords.

NATO is already building up its ability to protect from Russia - while Russia can’t start a rebuild yet because it is only barely keeping afloat as it is

Europe IS ramping up and NATO is standing together and it is technologically well ahead of Russia which makes a big difference.

Russia still has nothing like the F-35 and its air defences can't stop Ukrainian drones so would be very vulnerable to NATO missiles. The main reason it can get through Ukraine's defences is because NATO hasn't yet given it the level of air defences it would give to a NATO member under attack.

Then, if Ukraine joins NATO that adds 800,000 battle hardened soldiers with experience of fighting Russia that could respond to any article 5 situation.

So when analysts say that Russia will have over 1 million soldiers freed from fighting when the war ends - they should recognize that Ukraine will have its 800,000 soldiers freed too.

And if the US under Trump prevents Ukraine from joining NATO then the other nations could come to some special agreements with Ukraine as a friend and partner of NATO.

NATO military exercise Steadfast Dart, February 2025 - to demonstrate and test out the new very responsive and ultra-flexible Allied Response Force in action - and US is NOT involved

Right now Europe is doing a big exercise Steadfast Dart to show NATO's resolve. The US is NOT involved in this exercise. It is to test NATO's ability to respond rapidly to a crisis without US assistance.

This is after Biden helped NATO to "Trump proof" itself by transferring the center of operations for many things from the US to Europe.

This is the first test of a totally Europe centric response to an article 5 situation.

https://www.military.com/daily-news/2025/02/13/nato-tests-new-deployment-model-without-us-ahead-of-ukraine-war-anniversary.html

The aim is to test rapid deployment of 10,000 in a crisis - which is a lot of soldiers especially when equipped with modern NATO equipment and supported by modern NATO fighter jets - that's going on right now.

This would just be the spearhead with 300,000 that would follow up soon after.

Note - this is also what Trump wants. It's partly because of Trump's urging in his first term that NATO increased its spending so quickly.

He wants NATO to increase its military defence spending even more. He also wants NATO in Europe to be strong enough to hold back Putin without US support, he's made that very clear.

This is the Allied Response Force and the idea is that all of this is automatically committed in advance so it doesn't depend on discussions and decisions - as soon as article 5 is invoked then e.g. Estonia has immediate access to those 10,000 with 300,000 on their way if needed no matter what else NATO member countries might decide to do.

300,000 is more than enough to stop anything Russia might attempt once the Ukraine war is over.

The old NATO response force had some elements that could get to a crisis in a couple of days.

It has been replaced by the Allied Response Force, far larger far more flexible. It's currently led by Italy.

The leadership of the old NATO response force rotated around various countries, Germany in 2023 and the UK in 2024.

So this is probably the same. The US will never lead it because it is too far away to lead a response to a crisis in Europe

QUOTE STARTS

A ceremony was held on July 1, 2024, in Solbiate Olona, Italy to officially stand-up NATO’s new Allied Reaction Force (ARF), marking a significant milestone in enhancing NATO’s collective defence.

The ARF replaces the NATO Response Force (NRF). This development is crucial for the deterrence and defence of the Euro-Atlantic area, ensuring NATO is prepared to respond swiftly and effectively to any threat in an evolving security environment.

https://shape.nato.int/news-archive/2024/stand-up-of-allied-reaction-force-marks-a-new-era-for-nato

The idea is that it can respond on far shorter notice than was possible before. Also very flexible, allowing any additional forces to be added depending on the situation.

QUOTE STARTS

The NATO Allied Reaction Force (ARF) is a strategic, high-readiness, multi-domain capable force. It provides multi-domain forces from across the Alliance to produce effects at shorter notice than has previously been possible. The ARF is able to deploy at very short notice, supported by scalable multi-domain force packages to strengthen deterrence in peace and crisis or to create a strategic dilemma for adversaries. Its inherent flexibility allows SACEUR to allocate additional forces to the ARF Commander as required, in any situation.

...

The ARF is a capable of carrying out a full spectrum of missions. It can serve as a rapid deployable strategic reserve in crisis, it can be deployed to deter vertical/horizontal escalation, and it can also deploy rapidly in response to crises linked to other emerging situations. Multinational by design, an ARF is a clear demonstration of Allied commitment, cohesion and resolve.

https://www.nrdc-ita.nato.int/operations/allied-reaction-force

They are testing this in a large military exercise "Steadfast Dart" starting on February 10th to test rapid deployment in a crisis of 10,000 soldiers.

On February 10th, NATO is set to launch Steadfast Dart (STDT25), its most extensive military exercise of the year, marking the first large-scale deployment of the Allied Reaction Force (ARF), a high-readiness, multi-domain capable unit within NATO.

Steadfast Dart will bring together approximately 10,000 service personnel from nine nations, including Bulgaria, France, Greece, Italy, Romania, Spain, Slovenia, Türkiye, and the United Kingdom. The exercise will take place across multiple locations, with key operations concentrated in Bulgaria, Greece, and Romania.

The exercise has two main tasks. First the fast deployment will be trained, so the movement of troops and material via land, sea and air over vast distances. Then the intensive training in a multinational environment begins on the 10th of February.

...

Designed to showcase the operational and strategic capabilities of the ARF, Steadfast Dart will integrate land, sea, air, and special operations forces across Central and Eastern Europe. This multinational collaboration underscores the exercise’s broad geographical and tactical scope.

...

More than just a military exercise, Steadfast Dart will be a powerful demonstration of NATO’s unity, strength, and operational efficiency. By deploying at this scale, NATO reaffirms its unwavering commitment to peace and security in the Euro-Atlantic region.

https://shape.nato.int/steadfast-dart/media-centre/news/steadfast-dart-2025-strength-in-unity

UK is contributing 2,600 personnel and 730 vehicles.

https://www.army.mod.uk/news-and-events/immersive-stories/exercise-steadfast-dart-2025/

It is currently led by Italy

QUOTE STARTS

Steadfast Dart 2025 is part of a series of major NATO exercises taking place this year, aimed at testing the Alliance’s ability to respond to crises and reinforce its deterrence posture. The Exercise runs throughout January and February and marks the first full-scale operational deployment of NATO’s Allied Reaction Force (ARF) since its establishment in July 2024. Currently under the command of NATO Rapid Deployable Corps – Italy (NRDC-ITA), the ARF is a high-readiness, multi-domain force designed for swift deployment to crisis areas.

...

Large scale exercises like this ensure that troops from different nations can operate seamlessly across all domains including coordinated air, land, and sea movements, as well as incorporating cyber and electronic warfare elements. This ability is a key part of NATO strategy. Military planners say the force must be capable of operating in contested environments, integrating cyber, space, and conventional military capabilities to counter a range of threats.

https://shape.nato.int/steadfast-dart/media-centre/news/arf-embarks-on-eastern-europes-largest-military-drill

This is about the old VJTF (The Very High Readiness Joint Task Force) https://shape.nato.int/steadfast-defender/media-centre/questions-and-answers/the-very-high-readiness-joint-task-force-

And the old NRF https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/49755.htm

Whcih the UK led in 2024 https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/news_221565.htm

List of countries that led it in previous years here https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Very_High_Readiness_Joint_Task_Force

However the Allied Response Force is the latest version which was developed in response to the Russian invasion of UKraine.

Also this doesn't depend on the USA. It is too far away from Europe to be involved in the immediate rapid response and it isn't taking part in Steadfast Dart. This year participating countries are Bulgaria, France, Greece, Italy, Romania, Slovenia, Spain, Turkey, and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.

https://epicenter.bg/en/article/Medien-den-na-uchenieto-na-NATO--Steadfast-Dart--2025-/375638/2/0

This exercise is demonstrating NATO's resolve to Russia in a very clear and obvious way it can't miss and tells Russia not to mess with NATO because it will lose, and lose quickly.

This is what Admiral Radakin said some time back:

Text: The biggest reason that Putin doesn’t want a conflict with NATO is because Russia will lose. And lose quickly.

[Plus bullet points below]

[by lose quickly, Admiral Radakin means pushed right out of NATO territory, and any missile systems firing at NATO destroyed - NATO wouldn't try to defeat Russia as it is purely defensive]

NATO in Europe no longer depends on the USA to coordinate supplies to Ukraine

Also because of uncertainty of what Trump will do - Biden helped NATO to move the center of command for NATO operations supporting Ukraine to Europe.

TWEET: NATO is assuming responsibility for coordinating military aid to Ukraine. Some mechanisms previously organized by the United States are now being taken over by NATO, including a part of the responsibility for coordinating military assistance to Ukraine - Chairman of the NATO Military Committee, Admiral Rob Bauer.

TRANSCRIPT: The framework after Washington [NATO meeting in Washington] is to transfer some of the things that were organized by the US now into NATO.

The SACU, the IDCC - that was a group of nations helping Ukraine. Now NATO is taking over that responsibility and the United States has agreed to that.

https://x.com/Gerashchenko_en/status/1880591539488882959

They established the NSATU headquarters in Wiesbaden, Germany

QUOTE STARTS

NSATU will have three main focus areas:

- oversee training of Ukrainian armed forces at training facilities in Allied countries;

- provide support to the long-term development of Ukraine’s Armed Forces;

- support Ukraine through planning, coordination of donations with Allies and partners, transfer of security assistance material, and repair of equipment.

These efforts do not make NATO a party to the conflict, but enhance support to Ukraine’s self defence. By using NATO structures, support will be on a firmer footing, will provide more predictability for Kyiv, and will address both immediate and longer-term needs.

https://shape.nato.int/news-archive/2024/nato-security-assistance-and-training-ukraine-nsatu-is-assisting-ukraine

It has now taken over fully from the US.

“NSATU is now at a point in its development where it is taking on responsibilities from the International Donor Coordination Centre (IDCC) and the U.S.-led Security Assistance Group – Ukraine (SAG-U),” said German Army Major General Hartmut Renk, NSATU deputy commander.

The organization will coordinate the provision, transfer and repair of military equipment critical to Ukraine’s operations, as well as training in Allied countries to bolster Ukraine’s military effectiveness. These tasks will be synchronized with efforts to develop Ukraine’s future military force, in order to achieve full interoperability with NATO and align with NATO standards.

https://ac.nato.int/archive/2024/nsatu-is-beginning-to-assume-responsibilities-to-support-ukraine

Now they’ve also established a NSATU office in Ukraine to help.

“NATO continues to strengthen its military cooperation with Ukraine. NSATU's mission is progressing rapidly, and it is essential that support be delivered promptly and in the necessary quantities. The establishment of the NSATU office in Ukraine will facilitate more effective execution implementation of joint initiatives,” emphasized Rustem Umerov.

https://mod.gov.ua/en/news/ukraine-s-minister-of-defence-held-a-meeting-with-the-nsatu-leadership-focusing-on-training-defense-support-and-the-future-force-strategy

The headquarters of NATO always was Brussels in Belgium.

However under Biden, the US was integrated closely into the command structure for any response.

It isn't any more because of Trump’s erratic statements about NATO and Ukraine which led NATO countries to the conclusion they can’t rely on him to be a steady leader in the way Biden was.

So now NATO countries in Europe lead the initiative.

Negotiations are only just started over ending the Ukraine war - we shouldn't read much into the first steps

This is just a start of negotiations. I thought this was a good summary from Anton Gerashchenko, former advisor to the internal Affairs Minister in Ukraine who I follow on Twitter.

Talking to Ukrainians who are understandably anxious, he says:

- Gradually, we will see the demands of all sides. Then, a search for consensus will follow.

- We must keep calm and remember our goals.

- There will be lots and lots of rumors and anxiety. It's important to stay grounded.

- The crucial thing to remember: to achieve a just and lasting peace in Ukraine, Ukrainian Defense Forces must remain strong and well equipped; same goes for the military production complex.

Full quote:

TWEET STARTS

Negotiations started.

An important week. So many events and statements. We must keep calm and remember our goals.

The negotiations process will be taking place. Gradually, we will see the demands of all sides. Then, a search for consensus will follow.

There will be lots and lots of rumors and anxiety. It's important to stay grounded.

It's just the beginning.

The crucial thing to remember: to achieve a just and lasting peace in Ukraine, Ukrainian Defense Forces must remain strong and well equipped; same goes for the military production complex.

The United States is Ukraine's strategic partner. A just peace for Ukraine will show the real strength and impact of the US.

https://x.com/Gerashchenko_en/status/1889752808938696794

He also shares the statements of both Zelensky and Trump from their calls:

TWEET STARTS

Presidents Zelenskyy and Trump shared the details of their conversation:

◾️President Zelenskyy:

I just spoke to Donald Trump. A long conversation. About the possibilities of achieving peace. About our willingness to work together at the team level. About our technological capabilities, in particular drones and other modern productions. I am grateful to President Trump for his interest in what we can do together.

We discussed our conversation with Scott Bessent and the preparation of our new agreement on security and economic and resource interoperability. President Trump briefed me on the details of his conversation with Putin.

Ukraine wants peace more than anyone else. We define our joint steps with America to stop Russian aggression and guarantee a reliable, long-lasting peace. As President Trump said, let's get it done.

We agreed on further contacts and meetings.

◾️President Trump:

I just spoke to President Volodymyr Zelenskyy of Ukraine. The conversation went very well. He, like President Putin, wants to make PEACE. We discussed a variety of topics having to do with the War, but mostly, the meeting that is being set up on Friday in Munich, where Vice President JD Vance and Secretary of State Marco Rubio will lead the Delegation. I am hopeful that the results of that meeting will be positive. It is time to stop this ridiculous War, where there has been massive, and totally unnecessary, DEATH and DESTRUCTION. God bless the people of Russia and Ukraine!

https://x.com/Gerashchenko_en/status/1889743930117493214

If Trump can’t secure a far, safe, and lasting peace - Ukraine will just keep fighting until he does or someone else finds a solution

Fist there’s an asymmetry here

• Putin as the invader can stop fighting and leave Ukraine with no harm to the Russian Federation

• Ukraine as the invaded country can’t stop fighting except by surrendering its sovereignty to Russia

• If Ukraine stopped fighting, gave up its weapons, stood down all its soldiers, Russia would quickly take over all of Ukraine.

So this is just part of the dynamic of an invaded country. It is the invader that has to stop the war except by fighting back and pushing the invader out.

Ukraine has strong support from Europe and a strong defense industry base of its own - and won't be forced to submit to Russia.

• If Trump secures a just and fair lasting peace deal then Ukraine will be able to stop fighting

• If Trump doesn't secure a safe and lasting peace it will just keep fighting.

There’s no risk of a world war here. Just of the war continuing.

This is very different from 2024 when

• Ukraine depended so much on the US Ukraine bill in spring 2024.

• In 2025, it can continue fighting without any more support from Trump

That’s because of

• a big ramp up in support from Europe

• its own defense industrial bsae is now supported by its $2 billion per month from the EU secured against the interest on the Russian foreign reserves.

• Trump continues to send the equipment promised by Biden and not yet shipped to Ukraine

Biden also used the last few months of his presidency to help transfer the decision making and leadership of NATO from the US to Europe. NATO can now support Ukraine without any input from the USA.

Trump also wants a deal

• to support Ukraine militarily in return for

• access to Ukraine's mineral deposits for materials such as lithium.

This is already part of Ukraine's victory plan. But it depends on the details of what is meant. If he just means that the US will be able to buy Ukrainian Lithium along with Europe and other economic partners that's one thing, if he means somehow exclusive access to lithium that would be much more contentions.

QUOTE STARTS

Recently, US President Donald Trump stated that the United States could continue its aid to Ukraine in exchange for Ukrainian rare earth metals. He also mentioned that Washington is working on guarantees for Ukraine.

It is worth recalling that earlier, Zelenskyy stated that these resources are strategically valuable and could strengthen Ukraine. Specifically, within the victory plan, one of the points proposed by Ukraine was to sign an agreement with the US and other Western allies to protect these critical resources, jointly invest in them, and utilize their economic potential.

https://newsukraine.rbc.ua/news/zelenskyy-responds-to-trump-s-statements-1738688915.html

In more detail, Ukraine is interested in the deal. It has agreements ready to sign.

QUOTE STARTS

Speaking to reporters in the Oval Office on Monday, Trump said the United States wants Ukrainian rare earth minerals — such as lithium, uranium and titanium — in exchange for the security assistance that Ukraine depends on for its defense against Russia’s invasion.

“We’re looking to do a deal with Ukraine, where they’re going to secure what we’re giving them with their rare earth and other things,” Trump said.

With continued U.S. support for Ukraine in doubt since Trump’s election, officials in Kyiv regarded Trump’s interest in Ukraine’s rare earth commodities as a positive development that could get him invested in the country’s future. Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky first suggested providing the United States with the materials during his meeting with Trump ahead of the November election.

...

Trump’s interest in Ukraine’s offer of a barter for military aid could serve as a road map for how countries negotiate with his administration going forward.

…

A senior Ukrainian official, speaking on the condition of anonymity to discuss a sensitive matter, said Tuesday that Zelensky’s administration is “ready to sign documents about joint agreements” and that “having a strategic U.S. interest in Ukraine is a key component to our security in the future.”

...

Of particular interest to Trump is likely Ukraine’s prospective deposits of lithium — used for high-tech components, such as in microchips and electric car industries. Russia is also interested in Ukraine’s natural resources, and one major lithium reserve is within 10 miles of the front line in the Donetsk region. Analysts have estimated that Moscow has already managed to seize more than $12 trillion worth in Ukrainian energy assets.

Exactly how many mineral resources Ukraine has is something of a mystery, though it’s believed to be worth trillions. The Ukrainian official acknowledged that estimates are outdated and that new surveys would need to be done according to international standards

….

Part of the Ukrainian pitch to Trump was that China has already invested in receiving rare earth minerals from Africa and Latin America, so this marks an opportunity for the United States to compete with its adversary.

...

A European diplomat said Ukraine has discussed with its allies exploring the use of earnings from those resources for reconstruction — “not so much just giving them to another state or exchanging them for weapons.”

The viability of Trump’s proposal could depend “on how exactly it’s meant by Trump,” the diplomat said, speaking on the condition of anonymity to share internal deliberations.

He noted it would be somewhat different if the plan was to reach agreements on trade conditions or exclusive licensing access. “For now, we are in the process of figuring out what is a negotiating technique and what is meant literally,” the official said.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2025/02/04/ukraine-trump-rare-earth-minerals/

So he is giving conflicting messages here. Claiming to Putin he'll put pressure on Ukraine to end the war while at the same time telling Zelensky that he is in it for the long haul so long as Ukraine is prepared to make a deal on mineral reserves in Ukraine.

Trump can't make a decision for Ukraine and Europe. He's getting a lot of push back from Europe and from Ukraine for his decision to talk to Putin first before Zelensky. Europe is not going to give up on Ukraine. It's hugely ramped up on its capabilities to support Ukraine.

Since election day when Trump was voted in, Europe and Ukraine have prepared for this and they are ready to keep fighting without US support.

I know that Zelensky says he depends on the US but that is partly flattery and to try to get Trump to support him.

In reality Ukraine is far less dependent on the USA now than it was at the same time in winter / early spring in 2024. So long as Trump continues to let the Biden shipments of aid continue that will help a lot with the transition and its European allies are committed fro the long term.

Kaja Kallas - vice president of the EU and High Representative of the European Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy - about how Trump can’t make a deal over the heads of Europe and Ukraine - and Europe can continue to support Ukraine no matter what

Here she is responding to Trump who seems to have made concessions to Putin already, without checking with Europe or Ukraine

Kaja Kalas says

Any agreement without us will fail because you need Europe and Ukraine to also implement the agreement so without us at the table you know you can agree on on whatever but it will just simply fail because the implementation is not there

Any quick fix is is is a dirty deal that uh we have seen before when it comes to Minsk for example and it will just simply not work.

It will not stop the killing it will not stop the war and it will just continue.

...

Are the US listening?

Well, i we think about military aid I just met today the defense minister of Ukraine so 55% of the military they are financing themselves 25% comes from Europe 20% comes from US

This is the situation in Ukraine

If Ukraine decides to resist Europe will back the principles Europe will back Ukraine uh so yes with 20% less if US decides to withdraw but still Ukraine will defend the principles of sovereignty territorial integrity and the principles that also Europe stands for and and we are there together can you think of any times in history where a deal making with Russia has worked

[Some of the transcript is from a longer clip here]

Here she also says that NATO is the strongest security guarantee there is - and also the cheapest security guarantee.

Her point here is - why reinvent the wheel when we’ve got NATO already as a way to keep Ukraine safe after the war.

She says that in a negotiation we shouldn’t take anything off the table before negotiations even begin.

She is responding here to Trump saying he has already told Putin that Ukraine won’t join NATO and mde

Membership of NATO is the strongest security guarantee there is, and actually, it's also the cheapest security guarantee there is.

If we are saying that it's not going to be NATO membership but it's going to be some other security guarantees then the question needs to be answered by everybody, what are these security guarantees really.

Again I would say that we shouldn't take anything off the table before the negotiations have even started. Because it plays to Russia's court, and it is what they want.

Why are we giving them everything that they want even before the negotiations started?

It's appeasement. It has never worked.

Last question. HOw do you put these things back on the table? How does Europe muscle itself back to the table and put these options on the table again?

Is that even possible?

Again, I want to say that, if there is an agreement made behind our backs, it will simply not work.

Because for any kind of deal, any kind of agreement you need Europeans to implement it. You need the Ukrainians to implement it.

That also doesn't look good - if someone agrees something and everybody else says "Okay, fine you agreed but we will not follow this!"

Ukrainians will resist and we will support them.

https://x.com/kajakallas/status/1890050522331128136

The concessions Trump made - without any corresponding concessions from Putin - are:

• that Ukraine will never join NATO

• that Ukraine can’t return to its 2014 borders

• that Ukraine will be forced into a ceasefire

• hints that Ukraine has to elect a new president
  [something that’s not permited by their constitution during matial law and also impractical]

Zelensky just rejects this call says he doesn’t recognize it. He says nothing can be about Ukraine without Ukraine - that Trump hasn’t got the right to make all these decisions for Ukraine.

TRANSCRIPT:

We have already had three conversations with president Trump so I don't accept this call, that it was a priority for him to talk to Russia firest.

Although it's really not pleasant in any case.

You know how Ukrainian society, how all of us, and Europeans, react, is that first and foremost it's about Ukraine and nothing can be about Ukraine without Ukraine.

Video from AFP

Ukraine has a lot to offer NATO as the sixth largest army in the world and the only army with experience of fighting Russia in a modern war and fight it to a standstill

At the moment it's about opening communications. Whatever Hegseth or Putin says is only opening rounds. Zelensky also had a phone call with Trump - and they will surely meet in person soon.

There is no way Ukraine will say that Crimea and Donbas are part of Russia - that's just not going to happen.

There are solutions though for situations like this where one country has control of parts of another country.

Ukraine could come to a peace agreement where

1. Russia has control of Crimea and East Donbas, perhaps also the Azov sea coast (depending on the details).

2. Ukraine doesn't acknowledge the Russian claim

3. but Ukraine agrees to stop fighting.

4. after the treaty is made, Ukraine continues to negotiate with Russia to try to return Crimea, East Donbas and the Azov sea coast.

Zelensky has suggested solutions like this several times.

Ukraine doesn't need to have any realistic possibility of returning the territory through negotiations any time soon. But this solution means Ukraine doesn't recognize them as part of Russia.

Ukraine will never stop fighting unless it can get adequate security guarantees better than the Budapest Memorandum.

Trump does have the ability as president to say that he will never agree to let Ukraine join NATO during his presidency. Since new members can only be added with unanimous agreement that would stop Ukraine's ability to join for at least 4 years.

He can't bind future US presidents.

If Trump does say Ukraine can't join NATO - Ukraine can still have adequate security guarantees in other ways.

Ukraine does have the ability to defend itself with enough support.

Ukraine has the sixth largest army in the world and by far the largest army in Europe.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_number_of_military_and_paramilitary_personnel

After that it’s Turkey, Poland, France, Germany and the UK - the Polish army has increased significantly since that table:

The Polish armed forces contain 216,100 personnel, according to NATO’s estimates for this year. That is behind only the United States (1.3 million) and Turkey (481,000).

Poland is followed by France (204,700), Germany (185,600), Italy (171,400) and the United Kingdom (138,100).

https://notesfrompoland.com/2024/07/16/poland-has-natos-third-largest-military-new-figures-show/

https://notesfrompoland.com/2024/07/16/poland-has-natos-third-largest-military-new-figures-show/

Ukraine’s 800,000 soldiers are more than enough to deter an invasion if it has modern NATO equipment and is fully equipped with it.

So, as far as numbers of soldiers to defend with - it doesn't really need to be in NATO - even NATO's expanded Allied Response Force is only 300,000.

Zelensky has said that - that if it can’t join NATO then to give it the eqipment it needs to defend itself - AFTER THE WAR IS OVER.

The Russian army that invaded Ukraine was less than 200,000.

So, 800,000 soldiers equipped with modern NATO weapons and F-35 fighter jets etc would be enough to prevent Russia invading Ukraine again.

So, for security after the war is over, what Ukraine needs is access to the NATO technology after the war is over.

So they might have a solution where Ukraine is a close partner of NATO like Sweden was before it joined and with Ukraine transitioning to the F-35 fighter jets and supplied with all the modern technology.

Ukraine doesn’t need a nuclear umbrella to stop Russia invading again.

However, it does need to be better equipped than it is at present so that it has a big technological advantage over Russia and especially advantage in the air. That would make a new invasion impossible.

But this also shows what Kaja Kallas means about NATO being the cheapest option.

Instead of giving Ukraine the equipment it needs to keep out the entire Russian army just by itself - if Ukraien joins NATO, then Ukraine and other NATO members share that responsibility.

Ukraine can supply equipment itself too indeed will be a major arms exporter once the war is over.

Zelensky naturally is holding out for joining NATO - and he will present a strong case to Trump when they meet.

Zelensky's proposal is that Ukrainian fighters can substitute for many of the Americans in Europe and so make it easier for US to withdraw most of its soldiers from Europe.

That solution might appeal to Trump and overcome his objections to Ukraine joining NATO.

But if that doesn't work, he would need very strong security guarantees.

They need to be stronger than the Budapest Memorandum or the Ukrainians will keep fighting no matter what Trump says.

So this is just some thoughts. One way to have those guarantees would be for Ukraine to be a partner that trains with NATO and has support and access to all the equipment NATO has - with some agreement to support it with everything it needs to protect itself in an invasion by way of equipment but not formally joining.

The main issue is this is similar to the Budapest memorandum.

NATO provides far more security.

If Ukraine joins NATO that's irreversible unless all the other NATO members vote to eject it.

If all Ukraine has are security guarantees along the lines of the Budapest Memorandum, these can be ignored by future governments that didn't actually sign the guarantees.

E.g. a future UK government say that didnt sign them might not feel obligated to fulfil a guarantee that a previous UK< government signed a decade earlier. .

So Zelensky would explain all that to Trump. So - what could an alternative to NATO be?

Just my own thoughts: maybe a quid pro quo where Ukrainian soldiers agree to respond to an article 5 situation and fight for NATO and train with NATO - and in return Ukraine gets access to all the same technology and information sharing as a NATO country??

I.e. an informal article 5 like situation where Ukraine offers soldiers to NATO in a crisis and NATO offers weapons to Ukraine in a crisis

By offering something to NATO in response for help from NATO it might be more lasting than the Budapest memorandum. Just my thought here.

I expect Zelensky would map out some ideas, not necessarily that one - and then say "but look, it's far simpler if we just join NATO".

See also my

Ukraine might be able to restore its 2022 boundaries - though the 2014 boundaries would be more difficult - especially if they can’t get a deal early on

Zelensky is keen to end the war. But this idea that Ukraine can't restore its 2022 boundaries assumes that Ukraine doesn't do any major new counteroffensives.

But it might have the capability to do this. It could still liberate some large area say cutting through to the Azov coast.

There’s a huge difference from 2024. As it goes into 2025, Ukraine has thta $2 billion a month and has the support of a far stronger Europe.

If it had modern NATO technology it could do it easily.

It's not going to get everything it needs from its allies for a counteroffensive - but it is going to get more fighter jets - Mirage jets from France and F-16s from Netherlands - and it has the $2 billion a month for its own defense industry set against the interest on the Russian foreign reserve.

It's rapidly advancing its drone technology and its missile technology.

Recently Ukraine did its first ever all drones assault. https://kyivindependent.com/the-counteroffensive-inside-ukraines-historic-first-all-drone-assault-on-russian-positions/

That’s a major milestone because with drones everywhere along the front line it’s very hazardous for humans. But small drones are harder to target and also if they are desroyed- that’s just a drone.

Ukraine was able to take over a Russian position only using a large number of drones without any human soldiers invovled - they only operated the drones remotely. It's the first ever purely drone based military operation. Later humans then followed up to secure the outpost.

So Ukraine is very innovative and it might well have things planned out for later this spring when it gets dry enough for counteroffensives.

The Ukrainians wouldn't tell many of its allies about its secret plans.

Possibly not even the US yet. They would want to feel out whether Trump would share any secrets with Musk and if so how far it might spread after that. They had problems with leaks from the Biden admin and the Trump admin seems potentially to be more leaky than the Biden admin.

So if Ukraine isn't able to get security guarantees that it can rely on - it would have to continue fighting.

If for instance it cut through to the Azov sea then that would put Russia in a much weaker situation with Crimea suddenly very vulnerable.

Russia might then be willing to withdraw from the areas it has occupied since 2022 in return for keeping Crimea.

The other thing Ukraine may be able to do by itself if it doesn't get the guarantees it needs is to build missiles like its Neptune and its new ballistic missile but with a range of 1000 km instead of 300 km.

If it does that, the entire Black Sea is within reach and that then gives it a lot of leverage over Russia. Ukraine with its own missiles may be able to sink the entire Black Sea fleet later this year.

Not to actually do it. The fleet doesn’t play a very major role in the war any more though it is used as a platform to fire missiles at Ukraine from a distance.

But it would be a huge prestige loss to Russia to lose its Black Sea fleet. There isn’t anything comparable of miltiary nature in Ukraine for Russia to target.

The unique thing about warships is they

• can’t be hidden with camouflage

• can’t be buried

• can’t be flown or driven out of the Black Sea

• are easily visible targets in satellite images

• are very expensive to build and take a long time to build and so are hard to replace

• Ukraine has a proven ability to sink them and has already sunk a third of it - the remaining two thirds were sailed out of range of its missiles to the far side of the Black Sea.

Ukraine doesn’t have any warships of its own. So it’s a one-sided vulnerability.

I’ve never seen Zelensky or anyone else suggest it directly as a lever Zelensky could have to bring Putin to the negotiating table.

However Zelensky did ask Biden for Tomahawk cruise missiles saying it would give them a big leverage over Putin to get him to the negotiating table. It may be putting 2 and 2 to gether to make 5 but to me it seems that surely he had in mind the vulnerability of the Russian warships.

It would then get a far better bargain from Russia.

That again could lead to a situation where Russia agrees to give up the territory it occupied since 2022 in return for keeping Crimea.

So Ukraine may not agree with Hegseth on that assessment.

Hegseth misreported on Military tools of leverage - this does NOT mean US troops - it may mean tomahawks - he didn’t elaborate and likely can’t because the ideas are secret

This was shared on CNN, BBC and other mainstream media as a FALSE claim that Hegseth said that the US might send troops to Ukraine.k

There is no way they will do that.

Military tools of leverage do NOT mean US troops in Ukraine - it includes sending Ukraine equipment such as Tomahawks that any NATO member would have on day 1 - LEVERAGE to END THE WAR in Ukraine's favour - NOT TO ACTUALLY USE

This also should help scared people because it shows that Putin couldn't attack any NATO country because even Estonia has this leverage on day 1.

They could say "Stop this invasion right now or we'll use this leverage" whatever it is.

They wouldn't even need to fight back in Estonia.

TEXT ON GRAPHIC

Just journalists not aware that there are many other military tools of leverage such as extra equipment for Ukraine - or that Zelensky asked for Tomahawk cruise missiles for leverage - LEVERAGE means FOR UKRAINE TO HAVE - NOT TO USE

NOTE Any NATO country would have this leverage - ON DAY ONE - to end the war in Ukraine's favour

These levers are why Putin will NEVER attack a NATO country.

CNN updated the story but just adds at the end "This story has been updated with additional information"

Doesn't elaborate on the mistake.

It makes no sense WHATSOEVER to send US Troops to Ukraine when Ukraine has 800,000 soldiers on the front line and tens of thousands of other soldiers that still need to be sent weapons to equip them and 2.7 million that have put their name down to be called up if needed.

TEXT ON GRAPHIC

At least 2.7 million Ukrainians signed up to fight for their country with the Reserv+ app
Zelensky says Ukraine needs equipment not soldiers

Ukraine has ~2% of its 37 million people fighting.

It could increase this 4-fold and be far less than WW2 levels of ~12% fighting.

Modern wars need far fewer soldiers than earlier wars
- so long as they have well trained soldiers with high tech modern equipment.

For details see my:

Europe can easily find the 300,000 soldiers for the allied response force without the USA - and especially if Ukraine joins NATO

So now back to defence of NATO. They are actually closely related.

Ukraine has a lot to offer to NATO.

Europe can find 300,000 soldiers easily too, it's got far more than that amongst all participating countries in Europe. Turkey alone, as we saw, has more than 400,000.

Repeating that graphic:

https://notesfrompoland.com/2024/07/16/poland-has-natos-third-largest-military-new-figures-show/

US is still an important part of NATO. But if the US did disengage from NATO under Trump it would make very little difference.

The US is not needed for the nuclear deterrent though Trump would be unlikely to withdraw the nuclear umbrella from Europe.

Both France and the UK have independent nuclear deterrents that don't depend in any way on US permission. Both countries developed their own nukes with their own nuclear tests independently of the USA.

Under a new law which Biden signed after it passed in Congress, Trump legally can't leave NATO without consent of the Senate.

If he defied that new law then it would play out in the Supreme Court and he'd probably be forced to stay in.

But he can just refuse to take part in exercises in Europe and not honour the US's commitments to NATO.

The US only pays half a billion dollars a year to NATO - an amount that NATO countries can easily find if it stops paying

Trump often talks about the US paying too much to NATO. That could lead you to think that if the US withdrew that NATO would face major financial issues.

But no, NATO itself has very little by way of direct expenses.

The US pays about half a billion dollars a year into NATO funding, about the same as Germany or 16% of the the $3.3 billion a year.

That is not hard for Europe to find. It used to pay more but reduced because Trump in his first term said it's unfair for US to pay more than any other country to the NATO operating budget.

UK comes next at 11%, France at 10% and Italy at 8.5%, Turkey at 4.6%.

https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/topics_67655.htm

What Trump refers to here really is the % of the GDP each country spends on its own defence.

They have rapidly increased this percentage and indeed Poland now spends a higher % of its total GDP on defence than the USA. Greece is not far off and the UK, Germany and France all spend more than half of the % the US spends.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-44717074

Most NATO countries are now at above 2%.

Tiny Estonia is now second after Poland and the US which is one of the few countries to reduce its spending since 2021 is now in third place.

https://www.atlanticcouncil.org/blogs/econographics/whos-at-2-percent-look-how-nato-allies-have-increased-their-defense-spending-since-russias-invasion-of-ukraine/

As for personnel - back when the NATO response force was only 40,000

QUOTE Altogether, the enhanced NRF comprises around 40,000 troops.

. NATO Response Force

- the US contributed 12,000.

QUOTE Still, Kirby said, the U.S. has put as many as 12,000 service members on "prepare to deploy orders" so they will be ready if called upon to participate in the NATO Response Force. Some of those U.S. personnel may also be called upon to participate in any unilateral actions the U.S. may undertake.

. With Activation of NATO Response Force, U.S. Military Ready to Provide Forces

So that’s around 30%.

Now it's 300,000, doesn't say what proportion would be the USA but if it was the same proportion then that's 90,000.

If the US decides not to contribute to that 300,000 then the other countries can find 90,000 soldiers easily.

So if the US stopped all funding and all contributions of soldiers NATO would remain very strong.

Europe has its own defence industrial bases including in Germany as one of the big hubs but France, the UK, Sweden, Norway, many countries have developed their own air defence systems, their own fighter jets, their own tanks, infantry fighting vehicles etc. They do use F-16s and F-35s supplied from the USA but they bought most of those and so it's no different from any other foreign country the US supplies weapons to - they can still continue to use those fighter jets no matter what the US decides to do as well as all their own.

They also have their own aircraft carriers, nuclear powered subs, everything. UK and France have naval bases throughout the world, only the US has more than them. China has no foreign bases except a tiny one in Djibouti to keep an eye on shipping in the Middle East along with many other countries with similar small bases in Djibouti. Russia doesn't even have that and has just lost its only foreign base outside the former Soviet Union in Syria. Russia also doesn't have any aircraft carriers. The Soviet Union did but Russia sold or scrapped them all except for one which is out of service and not likely to return to service any time soon.

Europe is vastly more powerful than Russia, far more technologically advanced too.

I go into some of those details here:

Ukraine as a very valuable ally of NATO if it doesn’t join it once the war is over

Then Ukraine has the only modern army in the world apart from Russia with experience in fighting with drones and fighting a modern war against a roughly equal adversary. It's going to be a very valuable part of NATO whether it joins or remains an ally similar to the status of Sweden, say, before it joined NATO.

It's also got a major industrial base. Ukraine made all the Soviet Union silo based ICBMs and made many of their tanks and all its aircraft carriers.

It retained that capability through to the invasion. It was still servicing the Russian ICBMs when Russia took Crimea in 2014 - that's when Ukraine broke off its servicing contract with Russia.

It was a major exporter of military equipment before the invasion, and it will be after the war is over, one of the larger defence industrial bases in Europe.

Ukraine has shown it can stop Russia by itself with supplies of equipment from its allies.

If Ukraine joins NATO or has an informal arrangement where it cna help in an emergency - then it can contribute 800,000 soldiers who have actual experience of fighting Russian soldiers. Also very experienced in most NATO weapon systems and defence systems as well as direct front line experience of Russian equipment too.

So there's that too. Zelensky will explain this to Trump, that Ukraine is a huge asset to NATO if it joins.

So - we see that Ukraine was foght to a standstill in Ukraine. But if it was facing Ukrainian soldiers with the most modern NATO equipment including F-35 fighter jets, tomahawk cruise missiels etc then it would never be able to invade any NATO country. It's the same also with NATO soldiers but once the war is over then very likely Ukraine's military becomes part of NATO's response force in some way.

NATO generals will certainly want that. And Ukrainian soldier with NATO modern equipment and with the F-35 fighter jets would be a formidable protection for NATO by themselves. Russia is getting a beating fighting Ukraine without the most modern equipment. It's not going to want to face a rerun with a far stronger opponent.

That 300,000 will be automatic - the countries involved have already given permission in advance. If article 5 is triggered those 300,000 are available for any emergency.

So, if the Baltics are at risk all those soldiers can be deployed to help as needed. So that idea can't happen any more - that NATO would be stuck in negotiations deciding what to do.

And to add - I think it's likely once the war is over that Ukraine gets more and more integrated with NATO for self defence - and mutual benefit to NATO and Ukraine - whether it joins quickly or not. Perhaps something like the situation of Sweden and Finland before they joined NATO? If after the war is over they have the F-35s, Tomahawks etc then it might be as good as being a NATO member by way of deterrence.

After all Russia only invaded because Putin thought he could take over the country in 10 days. He's not going to believe that any more so long as Ukraine retains its current strength.

And I think he'd be very reluctant to start another war like this one. As a thought exercise, If hypthetically (not possible in our real world) you could somehow put Putin into a time machine to talk to his earlier self before February 2022 I think he'd try to persuade his younger self not to invade.

As an example of this closer integration, Ukraine has joined the Interallied Confederation of Reserve Officers:

QUOTE STARTS

Ukraine has become a member of the Interallied Confederation of Reserve Officers (CIOR). Its membership was unanimously approved, according to RBC-Ukraine's sources in Ukraine’s Ministry of Defense.

The heads of NATO member states’ reserve officers' associations voted in favor of Ukraine’s accession. The country joined CIOR through the Ukrainian Association of Reserve Officers and Veterans.

...

The NATO Confederation of Reserve Officers (CIOR) was founded by reserve officers who had participated in wars. Their goal was to use their experience to strengthen collective security and pass on their values to future generations.

CIOR focuses on integrating reserve service within NATO countries, supporting leadership training for reserve officers, and collecting and sharing best practices, particularly in skill development.

Notably, in 2023, Ukraine became a member of NATO’s Cooperative Cyber Defence Centre of Excellence. The Ukrainian flag was raised at the Center's headquarters.

https://newsukraine.rbc.ua/news/ukraine-joins-nato-reserve-officers-confederation-1738247023.html2024

Whether Ukraine joins NATO or not, it’s an important part of European security once the war is over.

So that’s one of the main messages here. Right now Ukraine is the country needing help

But in the future it may be the one that is helping to defend - by being just so formidable an adversary as part of NATO that Russia would never even consider invading.

However NATO has also strengthened itself immensely and has shifted away from the dependence on US leadership it used to have. That is another thing that Trump has done - forced Europe to strengthen it’s own military protection so that it no longer depends on the US military in the way it used to.

The short answer is you are very safe if you live in a NATO country.

For anyone in Ukraine, then Europe is stepping up and is strongly behind you whatever US decides.

And for Russia and those who support Russia - Ukraine wants peace. It wants an end to the war as much as anyone. But naturally enough it needs to a fair, safe, secure enduring peace.

I don’t think that in reality Rusisa would be keen to start this awr up again unless Putin could somehow force Ukraine to become very weak so he can take it over in days.

But it’s understandable after this invasion that Ukraine is very cautious and doesn’t want to enter into a “Minsk 3” type agreement that would only last a few years until the next invasion - after having had two invsions in 2014 and 2022 already, both of which it sees as Russia breaking promises.

Contents

• How to check for balance in a report claiming Russia can rebuild after the war to challenge NATO - tend to focus only on benefits to Russia of ending the war and not benefits to Ukraine or Europe

  • So why do we get reports saying that Russia could attack NATO? - because the military’s job is to keep us safe - so they overprepare - even for things that are impossible

  • Impossible scenario where China pivots to support Russia and loses interest in trade with US and Europe - beyond incredible

• Applying these questions to the Danish report

  • Implausible “worst case” assumption in the Danish report that China pivots to support Russia and no longer cares about trade with Europe or the USA

  • Extremely implausible that China pivots to Russia because only 3.22% of China’s exports are to Russia while 32.7% of Russia’s exports are to China

  • China also depends on Ukrine for low price wheat and other grains - with risk of price rises during the Black Sea blockades

• These reports are often intended to encourage support of NATO - no real risk of NATO weakening

  • Danish report says correctly that the European Defence production capacity increased hugely

  • Danish report says if NATO is unable to maintain military superiority over Russia - that Russia may attack NATO - but this is another implausible scenario

  • But then says Russia will find it hard to replace equipment lost in the war

• Russia will have major economic problems when the war ends transitioning to peace - with problems of stagflation that will get worse the longer the war continues

  • Implausible that Putin wants to start another war after this one - unless very confident he can win quickly

• NATO is already building up its ability to protect from Russia - while Russia can’t start a rebuild yet because it is only barely keeping afloat as it is

  • NATO military exercise Steadfast Dart, February 2025 - to demonstrate and test out the new very responsive and ultra-flexible Allied Response Force in action

  • NATO in Europe no longer depends on the USA to coordinate supplies to Ukraine

• Negotiations are only just started over ending the Ukraine war - we shouldn't read much into the first steps

  • If Trump can’t secure a far, safe, and lasting peace - Ukraine will just keep fighting until he does or someone else finds a solution

  • Kaja Kallas - vice president of the EU and High Representative of the European Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy - about how Trump can’t make a deal over the heads of Europe and Ukraine - and Europe can continue to support Ukraine no matter what

• Ukraine has a lot to offer NATO as the sixth largest army in the world and the only army with experience of fighting Russia in a modern war and fight it to a standstill

  • Ukraine might be able to restore its 2022 boundaries - though the 2014 boundaries would be more difficult - especially if they can’t get a deal early on

• Europe can easily find the 300,000 soldiers for the allied response force without the USA - and especially if Ukraine joins NATO

  • The US only pays half a billion dollars a year to NATO - an amount that NATO countries can easily find if it stops paying

  • Ukraine as a very valuable ally of NATO if it doesn’t join it once the war is over

• Contents

CONTACT ME VIA PM OR ON FACEBOOK OR EMAIL

If you need to talk to me about something it is often far better to do so via private / direct messaging because Quora often fails to notify me of comment replies.

You can Direct Message my profile (then More >> messages). Or better, email me at support@robertinventor.com

Or best of all Direct Message me on Facebook if you are okay joining Facebook. My Facebook profile is here:. Robert Walker I usually get Facebook messages much faster than on the other platforms as I spend most of my day there.

FOR MORE HELP

To find a debunk see: List of articles in my Debunking Doomsday blog to date See also my Short debunks

Scared and want a story debunked? Post to our Facebook group. Please look over the group rules before posting or commenting as they help the group to run smoothly

• Facebook group Doomsday Debunked

Also do join our facebook group if you can help with fact checking or to help scared people who are panicking.

SEARCH LIST OF DEBUNKS

You can search by title and there’s also an option to search the content of the blog using a google search.

CLICK HERE TO SEARCH: List of articles in my Debunking Doomsday blog to date

NEW SHORT DEBUNKS

I do many more fact checks and debunks on our facebook group than I could ever write up as blog posts. They are shorter and less polished but there is a good chance you may find a short debunk for some recent concern.

See Latest short debunks for new short debunks

I also do tweets about them. I also tweet the debunks and short debunks to my Blue Sky page here:

. doomsdaydebunks.bsky.social

Then on the Doomsday Debunked wiki, see my Short Debunks page which is a single page of all the earlier short debunks in one page.

I do the short debunks more often but they are less polished - they are copies of my longer replies to scared people in the Facebook group.rough Ukraine and will do so no matter what its allies do to support Ukraine.

TIPS FOR DEALING WITH DOOMSDAY FEARS

If suicidal or helping someone suicidal see my:

BLOG: Supporting someone who is suicidal

If you have got scared by any of this, health professionals can help. Many of those affected do get help and find it makes a big difference.

They can’t do fact checking, don’t expect that of them. But they can do a huge amount to help with the panic, anxiety, maladaptive responses to fear and so on.

Also do remember that therapy is not like physical medicine. The only way a therapist can diagnose or indeed treat you is by talking to you and listening to you. If this dialogue isn’t working for whatever reason do remember you can always ask to change to another therapist and it doesn’t reflect badly on your current therapist to do this.

Also check out my Seven tips for dealing with doomsday fears based on things that help those scared, including a section about ways that health professionals can help you.

I know that sadly many of the people we help can’t access therapy for one reason or another - usually long waiting lists or the costs.

There is much you can do to help yourself. As well as those seven tips, see my:

BLOG: Doing what matters at times of stress
— new WHO booklet to help with mental health during COVID19 pandemic

BLOG: Breathe in and out slowly and deeply and other ways to calm a panic attack

BLOG: Tips from CBT
— might help some of you to deal with doomsday anxieties