Politics Is it time for the west to assemble an army and kick Putin out of Ukraine?

[DrZoidberg]

I was about to write Russia. But it's not really Russia that has invaded the Ukraine, it's Putin. Russians are his victims as well.

What do you think? Has this invasion gone on long enough? Is it time to make a show of force and push out Russia once and for all?

I think the time for sanctions and diplomacy has passed. The Ukraine is slowly being ground to dust, and will lose this war. If we (the west) don't step up and help them.

What do you think?

 

[Patooka]

Hopefully I've timestamped this correctly:



Military campaigns never play out like shitty Tom Clancy novels.

 

[DrZoidberg]

Hopefully I've timestamped this correctly:



Military campaigns never play out like shitty Tom Clancy novels.

I love that movie.

So if wars don't play out like a Tom Clancy novel then there's no point going to war? If this is not the time to defend a country from Russian aggression, then what would be the time?

I understand that wars are messy and there's only degrees of losing. But sometimes necessary anyway. Don't you think so?

 

[Hermit]

Bad idea. Nothing rallies the plebs to a nation's leader than a threat by an external force. As far as most Russians are concerned Ukraine is rightfully an integral part of Russia. It's called the rally 'round the flag effect. Two examples:

 

[Patooka]

So if wars don't play out like a Tom Clancy novel then there's no point going to war? If this is not the time to defend a country from Russian aggression, then what would be the time?

I understand that wars are messy and there's only degrees of losing. But sometimes necessary anyway. Don't you think so?

There are so many moving parts that you glossed over in your initial post, this really is nothing more than a fantasy. The coordination and logistics alone would be a fucking nightmare. And if anything I'm understating that. Hence "The most stupid fucking idea I ever heard of".

 

[Jayjay]

I think the reason why Russia hasn't used nukes, and will likely not do so, is fear of drawing NATO into the conflict. But if NATO or just the US does send troops or planes to Ukraine, and start directly attacking Russian troops there, then the cat would be out of the bag and there's no reason for Russia not to start using tactical nuclear weapons or hitting NATO/US targets outside Ukraine.

The cat needs to stay in the bag, so that there are some unknown, unpredictable consequences that the West can threaten Russia with. When those consequences are activated and become predictable, their value as a deterrence is going to plummet.

So I don't think it's worth the risk. I can't answer the poll though because it doesn't have an option for "we shouldn't send armies to Ukraine even if Ukraine is losing".

On a general note, sending troops to other countries and fighting on their behalf is usually not a good idea. See Afghanistan: the locals just decided to swipe the money and sell the weapons, and let US and allies do all the fighting, because they could. It's a bad incentive structure. In Ukraine, the locals are the ones who have to decide, when they've had enough, and we need to give them what they need to get as good a negotiating position as they can get.

 

[DrZoidberg]

Bad idea. Nothing rallies the plebs to a nation's leader than a threat by an external force. As far as most Russians are concerned Ukraine is rightfully an integral part of Russia. It's called the rally 'round the flag effect. Two examples:

What exactly are you arguing for? Putin is a dictator. What does he care if Russians rally around him. It's not like they have a choice.

Every country was part of every other country if you go far back enough. That's just classic nationalistic nonsense. Any nationalist can make that argument and will be believed by that country's nationalists.

 

[DrZoidberg]

So if wars don't play out like a Tom Clancy novel then there's no point going to war? If this is not the time to defend a country from Russian aggression, then what would be the time?

I understand that wars are messy and there's only degrees of losing. But sometimes necessary anyway. Don't you think so?

There are so many moving parts that you glossed over in your initial post, this really is nothing more than a fantasy. The coordination and logistics alone would be a fucking nightmare. And if anything I'm understating that. Hence "The most stupid fucking idea I ever heard of".

How's that an argument against war? Most things when it comes to war is a nightmare. So? That's not a reason not to go to war.

 

[Harry Bosch]

I think the reason why Russia hasn't used nukes, and will likely not do so, is fear of drawing NATO into the conflict. But if NATO or just the US does send troops or planes to Ukraine, and start directly attacking Russian troops there, then the cat would be out of the bag and there's no reason for Russia not to start using tactical nuclear weapons or hitting NATO/US targets outside Ukraine.

The cat needs to stay in the bag, so that there are some unknown, unpredictable consequences that the West can threaten Russia with. When those consequences are activated and become predictable, their value as a deterrence is going to plummet.

So I don't think it's worth the risk. I can't answer the poll though because it doesn't have an option for "we shouldn't send armies to Ukraine even if Ukraine is losing".

On a general note, sending troops to other countries and fighting on their behalf is usually not a good idea. See Afghanistan: the locals just decided to swipe the money and sell the weapons, and let US and allies do all the fighting, because they could. It's a bad incentive structure. In Ukraine, the locals are the ones who have to decide, when they've had enough, and we need to give them what they need to get as good a negotiating position as they can get.

Yea, I reluctantly agree with Jay. We can't risk WW3. We can't give the evil Russian empire the motivation to destroy the world. I'm sure that we have special forces in Ukraine helping. But the west can do much more as well. We could find more sanctions. The next step is try find way to punish countries that are helping or providing cover for Russia (China and India and others). We should start boycotting countries that are helping Putler.

 

[Patooka]

How's that an argument against war? Most things when it comes to war is a nightmare. So? That's not a reason not to go to war.

Okay, Leroy. Good luck with that.

 

[DrZoidberg]

I think the reason why Russia hasn't used nukes, and will likely not do so, is fear of drawing NATO into the conflict. But if NATO or just the US does send troops or planes to Ukraine, and start directly attacking Russian troops there, then the cat would be out of the bag and there's no reason for Russia not to start using tactical nuclear weapons or hitting NATO/US targets outside Ukraine.

The cat needs to stay in the bag, so that there are some unknown, unpredictable consequences that the West can threaten Russia with. When those consequences are activated and become predictable, their value as a deterrence is going to plummet.

So I don't think it's worth the risk. I can't answer the poll though because it doesn't have an option for "we shouldn't send armies to Ukraine even if Ukraine is losing".

I think the chance of Putin escalating to nuclear war is extremely low. Perhaps if coalition forces threaten to attack into Russia. But I don't think that's in the cards.

The only problem, of course, is that when it comes to nuclear war, even a low chance of it is perhaps an unacceptably high risk. But at this point

On a general note, sending troops to other countries and fighting on their behalf is usually not a good idea. See Afghanistan: the locals just decided to swipe the money and sell the weapons, and let US and allies do all the fighting, because they could. It's a bad incentive structure. In Ukraine, the locals are the ones who have to decide, when they've had enough, and we need to give them what they need to get as good a negotiating position as they can get.

Finally, an actual serious argument against a war in Ukraine. I think the main problem with the Afghanistan invasion was that the narrative USA was telling about itself was a complete fantasy. Nobody sees USA as the land of the free outside USA. The cold war tarnished USA's image beyond salvation. Something Bush Jr failed completely to understand. It was a question of mismatched propaganda narratives. To the Afghanis I'm sure USA's rhetoric came across as the ramblings of a madman. Which is fascinating in its own right, because nothing should be easier to win against in a propaganda battle than god damn fucking Talebans.

Ukraine is different. But Ukraine is ruled by Oligarchs. Zelenskyy is just a puppet for the maffia. We don't want to go war only to hand it over back to the Ukrainian oligarchs/maffia once it's done. But we do have a golden opportunity to help Ukraine become a modern nation with low corruption. Also a good idea because the Ukraine has natural gas. Making us less dependent on Russia for it.

 

[Harry Bosch]

I think the reason why Russia hasn't used nukes, and will likely not do so, is fear of drawing NATO into the conflict. But if NATO or just the US does send troops or planes to Ukraine, and start directly attacking Russian troops there, then the cat would be out of the bag and there's no reason for Russia not to start using tactical nuclear weapons or hitting NATO/US targets outside Ukraine.

The cat needs to stay in the bag, so that there are some unknown, unpredictable consequences that the West can threaten Russia with. When those consequences are activated and become predictable, their value as a deterrence is going to plummet.

So I don't think it's worth the risk. I can't answer the poll though because it doesn't have an option for "we shouldn't send armies to Ukraine even if Ukraine is losing".

I think the chance of Putin escalating to nuclear war is extremely low. Perhaps if coalition forces threaten to attack into Russia. But I don't think that's in the cards.

The only problem, of course, is that when it comes to nuclear war, even a low chance of it is perhaps an unacceptably high risk. But at this point

On a general note, sending troops to other countries and fighting on their behalf is usually not a good idea. See Afghanistan: the locals just decided to swipe the money and sell the weapons, and let US and allies do all the fighting, because they could. It's a bad incentive structure. In Ukraine, the locals are the ones who have to decide, when they've had enough, and we need to give them what they need to get as good a negotiating position as they can get.

Finally, an actual serious argument against a war in Ukraine. I think the main problem with the Afghanistan invasion was that the narrative USA was telling about itself was a complete fantasy. Nobody sees USA as the land of the free outside USA. The cold war tarnished USA's image beyond salvation. Something Bush Jr failed completely to understand. It was a question of mismatched propaganda narratives. To the Afghanis I'm sure USA's rhetoric came across as the ramblings of a madman. Which is fascinating in its own right, because nothing should be easier to win against in a propaganda battle than god damn fucking Talebans.

Ukraine is different. But Ukraine is ruled by Oligarchs. Zelenskyy is just a puppet for the maffia. We don't want to go war only to hand it over back to the Ukrainian oligarchs/maffia once it's done. But we do have a golden opportunity to help Ukraine become a modern nation with low corruption. Also a good idea because the Ukraine has natural gas. Making us less dependent on Russia for it.

Agree with your post. The Donbass has very large gas deposits. Not sure if Ukraine gets it back. But clearly, there are very large gas deposits north of Kyiv. Chevron had signed a very large contract to extract it with the Ukrainian government. However, this was stopped when Russia originally invaded in 2014 (which some have theorized was the real reason for the 2014 invasion). Bad news though, is that it would probably take years to develop these fields.

 

[Jayjay]

And who's going to pony up the cash to develop gas fields with the risk that they'll just be gobbled up by Russia and Belarus the next time they attack?

 

[DrZoidberg]

How's that an argument against war? Most things when it comes to war is a nightmare. So? That's not a reason not to go to war.

Okay, Leroy. Good luck with that.

I don't understand your attitude. Are you seriously saying that it was a mistake for the allies to oppose Hitler? Sometimes violence is necessary

 

[Ford]

What do you think? Has this invasion gone on long enough? Is it time to make a show of force and push out Russia once and for all?

At the beginning of the conflict, I heard an argument for establishing a no-fly zone over Ukraine, and the longer this goes on the better that option looks.

The plan was to not just go in guns-a-blazing. NATO (or select members) would simply set a date and time for the operation to start. When the deadline arrived, the participating powers would shoot down any aircraft larger than a kite that entered the airspace of Ukraine. Ukraine's air force would also stand down. Simple deterrence. Don't fly here, don't get shot down.

Russia knows that going toe to toe with NATO is a losing proposition. Stick a toe out there, guys. You don't have to "push out Russia" from Ukraine. The Ukrainians can do that.

 

[Jayjay]

What do you think? Has this invasion gone on long enough? Is it time to make a show of force and push out Russia once and for all?

At the beginning of the conflict, I heard an argument for establishing a no-fly zone over Ukraine, and the longer this goes on the better that option looks.

The plan was to not just go in guns-a-blazing. NATO (or select members) would simply set a date and time for the operation to start. When the deadline arrived, the participating powers would shoot down any aircraft larger than a kite that entered the airspace of Ukraine. Ukraine's air force would also stand down. Simple deterrence. Don't fly here, don't get shot down.

Russia knows that going toe to toe with NATO is a losing proposition. Stick a toe out there, guys. You don't have to "push out Russia" from Ukraine. The Ukrainians can do that.

I think that a "no-fly zone" is unrealistic for a friendly country like Ukraine. Basically, that would mean that both sides get to fight, but they can't use planes or missiles. But what about drones spotting for artillery? Or medium range rockets like those fired from M142 HIMARS?

So in reality, a no-fly zone would mean that the war ends. But does that mean Russia gets to keep what it is already occupying? If not, then clearly it would be just part of NATO air force joining the war on Ukrainian side, "guns blazing" as you put it.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

"The West" is already at war with Russia. It's just not NATO troops all over Ukraine. Instead, Ukraine govt is being given tons of money and weapons, political strategies are in place to make it not worth Russia's interest to fully occupy Ukraine, and there are most likely secret programs to assassinate Putin. Putin was showing signs of being sick up to recently and I bet he will become very ill and die within the next few months.

Poll choices:
"Yes. The sooner we attack the better." -- I am not sure that this is true. It adds a huge amount of risk and complexity. Does Putin have more forces in reserve, will he then use nukes, what would China do, how will Russian sympathizers in Ukraine react to outside involvement, would it increase sympathy for Russia? There is also a lot of political complexity in American politics--such as Russianpublicans may use further direct involvement in the war to completely take over the levels of government and then run from the war entirely. So, it could become the opposite of the intent to be further involved.
"No. Ukraine will be able to defend themselves on their own." -- As written above, Ukraine seems not on its own as there is some support and in parallel most likely a strategy to take out Putin.
"It's what the lizard people want you to think." -- There is some truth to this option as there are beneficiaries to a Ukraine war, including not only defense contractors making gazillions but also gas and oil barons who have a vested interest to own the same resources that Putin and Russian oligarchs want. We have to, of course, detach ourselves from who wants what and pay attention instead to what would be the outcome. We ought not support the massive deaths of innocents and that is really the bottom line. Regardless of capitalist corruption and American or Russian oligarchs owning things in a post-war world, would an invasion of Russia-occupied Ukraine by NATO result in overall less deaths overall, not immediately, but several chess moves later on?

 

[Harry Bosch]

And who's going to pony up the cash to develop gas fields with the risk that they'll just be gobbled up by Russia and Belarus the next time they attack?

A way will be found. I'd argue that Europe (mostly Germany) took a much bigger risk on counting on Russia when it decided to ditch its nuclear power plants in favor of Russian gas. The sad fact is that Europe needs power. Or they can't run their factories nor heat their homes. They can't count on Russia. But they have to find a way to power their countries.

 

[Hermit]

Bad idea. Nothing rallies the plebs to a nation's leader than a threat by an external force. As far as most Russians are concerned Ukraine is rightfully an integral part of Russia. It's called the rally 'round the flag effect.

What exactly are you arguing for?

Nothing rallies the plebs to a nation's leader than a threat by an external force. Surely, you won't need me to spell out the consequences.

Putin is a dictator. What does he care if Russians rally around him. It's not like they have a choice.

Point being?

Every country was part of every other country if you go far back enough. That's just classic nationalistic nonsense.

That really has no bearing on what is going to happen when the inhabitants of a nation are confronted with what you euphemistically refer to as "a show of force". Classic nationalism is a nonsense, to be sure, but the rally 'round the flag effect happens regardless of whether or not the head of state is a dictator. You can bet your bottom krona on that. I cited two of many examples. There are plenty more.

Any nationalist can make that argument and will be believed by that country's nationalists.

Exactly, but faced with a real or faked threat promoters of that argument need not be nationalists and the believers need not be either. Just look at how quickly isolationist sentiments in the USA evaporated after the attack on Pearl Harbor.

The point was made most succinctly by Hermann Göring. Gustave Mark was an American psychologist, who examined him among other high-ranking Nazis at length during the Nuremberg trials. From his notes, published in his 1950 book The Psychology of Dictatorship:

We got around to the subject of war again and I said that, contrary to his attitude, I did not think that the common people are very thankful for leaders who bring them war and destruction.

"Why, of course, the people don't want war," Goering shrugged. "Why would some poor slob on a farm want to risk his life in a war when the best that he can get out of it is to come back to his farm in one piece. Naturally, the common people don't want war; neither in Russia nor in England nor in America, nor for that matter in Germany. That is understood. But, after all, it is the leaders of the country who determine the policy and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy or a fascist dictatorship or a Parliament or a Communist dictatorship."

"There is one difference," I pointed out. "In a democracy the people have some say in the matter through their elected representatives, and in the United States only Congress can declare wars."

"Oh, that is all well and good, but, voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same way in any country."

The reaction by the poor slobs is automatic. Obviously, no leader needs to actually tell them that their country is being attacked when it is confronted by what you refer euphemistically as "a show of force".

 

[Jayjay]

And who's going to pony up the cash to develop gas fields with the risk that they'll just be gobbled up by Russia and Belarus the next time they attack?

A way will be found. I'd argue that Europe (mostly Germany) took a much bigger risk on counting on Russia when it decided to ditch its nuclear power plants in favor of Russian gas. The sad fact is that Europe needs power. Or they can't run their factories nor heat their homes. They can't count on Russia. But they have to find a way to power their countries.

Europe can wean off natural gas as an energy source by the time the Ukrainian gas fields can be developed. But natural gas (i.e. methane) as a material for chemical industry is probably going to be in demand even decades from now.

The investments would have to come from private sector though. And there's always other places to invest it, like gas fields in Mediterranean, or more LNG terminals, the Ukrainian country risk might be too high.