Direct. Quote. 
Eerste Minister Rutte kan wel uitstekend goed Engels. 
An idea with truly biblical scope,
I think the classical recommendation was 20% stocks per year to storage.
there has been no serious military analysis of what the military requirements for a Nato defense commitment to Ukraine would be.
What?! The author’s qualifications seem reasonable but that whole piece seems fluffy.
is going to have the only army in NATO that has fought a war for survival battling the one country that NATO was organized to contain. They know NATO weapons, they know 
weapons, they know NATO tactics, they have fought alongside NATO trained volunteers. They know exactly what their defense requirements are, and thanks to this brutal fight, so do we.
Not inviting to NATO is not inviting your top athlete to the national team.
The problem with admitting Ukraine right now is that it would commit the entirety of NATO to a war with Russia, which would be a cakewalk and utterly humiliating for Putin, who still has a stockpile of nukes. How many are still working? Who knows, but I will bet it is more than none, and that could pose a problem. Not claiming I have an answer, but important to think through the knock-on effects of our actions. (Also, I think there is a requirement for a country to be in control of its territory prior to admission? But I could be totally wrong as well.)
Yeah, that’s the only reason not to bring Ukraine into NATO, and it’s a very good one. Which is why this guy disingenuously complaining about other stuff is so annoying.
I agree that “now” is tricky, and IIRC not being in control of their territory is a blocking condition for NATO entry anyhow. But the minute the last soldier in is waving the white flag…
Putin won’t survive long enough, after giving the order to launch nukes, to actually press the proverbial button.
I hope this is correct. Losing in Ukraine could be enough of a humiliation for him to take the coward’s way out, but he has the ability to take a big chunk of the world with him.
