How should west respond to potential (likely) Russian invasion of Ukraine?

[Jayjay]

But you should check your history books too

I am not sure where we disagree here.

The point is, Stalin was paranoid about Leningrad and offered Finland non-negotiable deal, you refused, hence he took the territory in very badly conducted offensive. Germans looked at it and concluded "Russians suck at it, we can run over them in no time" And they almost did.
After the war you being Germany ally most of the war and Russia being a winner meant nobody would probably even ask about that territory.

Stalin was not grabbing land left and right as some people here try to imply.

Stalin made similar demands to Baltic states, and attacked them anyway. That looks very much like "grabbing land left and right". And of course, after the war USSR kept what it had conquered.

Whether it was paranoia or greed is between him and his therapist, the end result is the same: a mad dictator never content with what he's got. I personally find it much more plausible that Stalin's pre-war negotiation was just to get some of the land for free, and making the eventual annexation of Finland a few days shorter. Same with Putin's ludicruous demands to NATO before the war. He was going to invade anyway, but if he could squeeze some concessions before the war or humiliate Zelensky, that's all the better.

 

[Jayjay]

It's increasingly starting to look look like the Ukraine will end up an expensive and embarrassing mess for Putin.

It's also clear now that the Ukranian Nazi's was something Putin invented for propaganda reasons and to give him an excuse to attack. All bullshit.

I've also learned from my investment banker friends, with oligarch connections, that the sanctions are hitting Putin right in the nuts, and is risking his actual life. I thought it was a lame an ineffectual response. But it turns out to be the one weapon Putin fears the most.

China is not backing up Putin. That's nice. And gives hope for Taiwan's survival.

This Ukrainian adventure is not at all turning out the way we thought. The worrying neurotics are often right. But often not.

I count myself as one of those neurotics.

Kyiv didn't fall in a day, like Putin had anticipated. But it will fall. I can't but applaud Zelensky, he's very likely going to be dead in a week. And regardless, Kyiv is not the reason for the attack, it's just part of the offensive to keep Ukrainian military divided between multiple targets. The thing I'm watching on the maps in news shows is the progress of Russian occupied area in Donbass and the coast. Slowly but surely, Russia is taking over all the territory that he wants, and when that's done, he can end the war. With or without Kyiv.

So what happens after that? Putin will say that he's not going to withdraw and that's a red line. Just like with Crimea. And threaten nukes if anyone tries to retake the land by force. The rest of Ukraine can either agree to a ceasefire or continue a losing battle. EU and NATO can look at continue sanctions, but it'll become harder and harder because of the economic impact, and russian propagandists taking advantage of the fissures between EU nations and even political parties within the nations. The argument will be, do we really want to have higher electric bills and gas because of Ukraine's losing fight?

I hope Ukraine can fight as long as it can, and that EU and US remain unified as long as possible. But eventually Putin will win this war, even if it becomes more expensive than he thought. Right now a bank run and widespread chaos in Russia is pretty much the only thing that can stop it, but I don't think it will happen.

There's an Estonian saying: "Everything is Russia is shit, except for piss." I think the same applies to 99% of world.

 

[Elixir]

The rest of Ukraine can either agree to a ceasefire or continue a losing battle.

I disagree that it's a losing battle. A very expensive battle that can never be won in the sense of "return to pre-war conditions of peace", but the resistance is surprising. If it is as durable as it is (apparently) effective, they will wear down any occupying force eventually. And in Russia's case, rather quickly. It will be scorched earth or withdrawal. If Putin considers the results of both scenarios it's going to be a tough choice.

 

[Jayjay]

Historical inaccuracy is also not a valid reason for invasion.

Distortion or really "lies". So, You finally agreed that your side lies about history.

Earlier you accused me of quoting snippets without taking into account the context. Take your own advice. This was a reply to your saying that Putin invaded Ukraine because they were "distorting WW2 history". Ukraine isn't collectively doing such a thing (few nutty textbooks and nationalist claptrap aside), but if that were a justification for invasion, Finland would be entitled to invade Russia a thousand times over for your distortions.

 

[Patooka]

Updating your Facebook page with the flag of Ukraine is not enough, let the serious virtue signaling begin

Says the guy with lets go brandon in his profile.

 

[Jayjay]

(I posted this earlier in the wrong thread.)

Please treat the following as ignorant questions, rather than comments. I lack any relevant expertise and don't like clicking on depressing news stories.

(1) How dependent is Europe on Russian natural gas? If Russia turned off the spigots, I suppose that might cause inflation and/or recession in countries like Poland, Hungary or even Germany, but would it cause people to freeze to death? Russia is financially dependent on these sales: Are the banking sanctions designed with loopholes to allow these gas exports to continue?

Very dependent. Central Europe is already struggling with energy bills, and I suspect that turning off the gas would be the last resort. My understanding is that the current sanctions do have explicit loopholes for the gas payments to continue. Not sure if anyone would freeze to death and I hope we don't find out.

France and the Nordics are less dependent on Russian gas, thanks to nuclear power and renewables. But common market means that higher prices and inflation is felt everywhere.

(3) If Putin decides his invasion was a mistake, is there any way he can withdraw while still saving face? Is the Western goal to stage a face-saving peace conference in which it's pretended that Russia had legitimate grievances?

I don't think Putin will ever withdraw.

(4) I'm afraid nuclear confrontation may be possible. The Soviet and Chinese governments never considered a first strike because, however evil or incompetent they might have been, they were operated by committees of rational men. An irrational strike by North Korea's Kim, OTOH, cannot be ruled out: a psychopath might take pride from becoming the most famous evil-doer in history and let his whim outweigh the loss of millions of innocent lives. Where does Putin fit on the sociopathy spectrum?

I'd rather not find out. He just might be crazy enough to use nukes, followed by "Look what you made me do!"

 

[barbos]

It's a issue with Russia's own agricultural import ban. A 100% self-inflicted problem.

What are you talking about?
Russia basically banned french/italian cheese and started to make its own replica, which lets to be honest here, is exactly the same as original. Apples were banned too (to hurt Poland). Poland did not know what to do with these apples, asked their own people to eat them. Of course Belarus started to relabel EU food as their own and make good money doing it.

Ban was a response to West ban.

I didn't say he went to war over it. But he did order Yanukovich to kill the EU association agreement, which kicked off the protests and everything snowballed from there

No, you are wrong. Protests were mostly peaceful students, and no nazis at all, and protests were waning out. But then Nuland parachuted and said "No, show must go on!" and invited nazis to the party. Nazis had no interests in EU integration, why would they? but then Nuland explained to them that this is opportunity for them.

He got elected on the promise of signing the agreement. Your statement is (probably) true only to the extent that Yanukovich probably was always Putin's stooge and simply lied about it earlier.

Honestly I don't know what he promised before elections. But he was no stooge.
He was for himself.

The EU association agreement being "shit" is just a diversion. It's mostly symbolic, and the actual meat is in the implementation

No, it was practically designed to lose elections for anyone who signed it,
It literally opened all Ukrainian market for EU, and opened tiny bit of EU market for Ukraine. The reason why students were interested in EU integration and went to Maidan was that they wanted free pass/travel to EU for work and get the hell out of Ukraine, like young people in Baltic states did before them. Come on, who would not want to emigrate to Europe? I mean except nazis of course.

I've told you all of that million times already, why is it so hard to understand?

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Actually they did. Russia did not complain too much about it because it was clear that US/West would dismiss it as False Flag (US said so in advance) So they simply denied US that opportunity.
The plan was to provoke Russia into going into East Ukraine and stay there or annex it. That would kill Nord Stream 2 and would give other benefits to Ukraine. That's why Ukrainian government did not believe Russia would invade, they were not lying, they truly believed in their plan. They miscalculated. And now we have this shit. Many thanks to Nuland&Co

Simple test: Who benefited from the attack? Russia, not Ukraine. Doesn't that strongly suggest that Russia actually did it? (Assuming it even happened at all.)

 

[Jayjay]

But the fundamental truth is that Russia invaded Ukraine. No spin there.

I don't disagree. But Russia did not start this war. It was started 8 years ago by Ukraine, against their own (at the time) people, they caused death of 14k people, "civilized" world did absolutely nothing to stop it.
And Russia is going to end this war, and if invasion is the solution so be it.

This is simply bullshit and you know it. Nothing Ukraine did justified the invasion. Not now, and not 8 years ago when Russia took Crimea. You are right though that one of the reasons for the war is that the "civilized world" didn't do enough against Russia 8 years ago, a mere slap on the wrist, which just encouraged Putin. I hope the current sanctions work better.

Have fun queuing at the ATM trying to get your money out before the banking system collapses. You have this guy to thank:

 

[Loren Pechtel]

В Испании украинец потопил яхту вице-президента Ростеха

Суд оправдал украинского моряка, когда тот заявил, что таким образом отомстил РФ за обстрел мирного населения в Украине.

korrespondent.net

Great, EU allows to attack russians in EU.
Ironic part here is, there was no russian cruise missile hitting a residential building in Kiev.
It was UKRAINIAN (!!!!) Anti-Aircraft rocket which failed for some reasons. What they were trying to shoot with it is unknown. Could be russian cruise missile or it could be ukrainian plane as they did earlier.

Russia is not dumb enough to waste cruise missiles on ordinary condos of random guys. If it comes to that they would use ordinary bombs.
Stupid dumbass!

SAMs normally self-destruct if they can't find a target and if they did approach a building they would probably detonate before hitting as they have proximity fuses. Missiles that plow into buildings are normally missiles that were designed to hit something on the ground.

I do agree nobody's going to shoot a cruise missile at an ordinary civilian building--but that doesn't mean it wasn't a cruise missile that had been shot down. Such things happen in war, it doesn't mean anyone committed a war crime.

 

[Jayjay]

But the fundamental truth is that Russia invaded Ukraine. No spin there.

I don't disagree. But Russia did not start this war. It was started 8 years ago by Ukraine, against their own (at the time) people, they caused death of 14k people, "civilized" world did absolutely nothing to stop it.
And Russia is going to end this war, and if invasion is the solution so be it.

Yes... and Putin's 8 year pause on acting on the murder of 14k is duly noted.

I think the 14k number refers to people (allegedly) killed during those 8 years in Donbass region. Which is also Putin's fault, for supporting and arming the separatists. So Putin is now invading rest of the Ukraine for the deaths he himself is responsible for.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Collective defence - Article 5​

"The principle of collective defense is at the very heart of NATO’s founding treaty. It remains a unique and enduring principle that binds its members together, committing them to protect each other and setting a spirit of solidarity within the Alliance."

If Putin attacks Poland or any other NATO member all the NATO members should respond with a defense.

I would include tactical nuclear battle field weapons.

There's no such thing as a "tactical nuclear weapon". If anyone ever opens that can of worms, no matter how small the nuke is or how little the target, the results will be catastrophic. Soon everyone will be nuking everyone.

Tactical nuclear weapon = meant for battlefield use, aimed at mobile targets.

Strategic nuclear weapon = meant for use against major fixed targets.

The former are actually more dangerous because their actual use is up to the battlefield commanders, not the leaders of the nation.

 

[barbos]

This is simply bullshit and you know it. Nothing Ukraine did justified the invasion. Not now, and not 8 years ago when Russia took Crimea.

No, it's not bullshit. Bullshit is what you suggest.
Nuland released nazi-themed chaos in Ukraine. Russia is justified to fix it.
Way more than NATO in Yugoslavia. Problem of course is that Russia is small and alone in it.

 

[barbos]

Actually they did. Russia did not complain too much about it because it was clear that US/West would dismiss it as False Flag (US said so in advance) So they simply denied US that opportunity.
The plan was to provoke Russia into going into East Ukraine and stay there or annex it. That would kill Nord Stream 2 and would give other benefits to Ukraine. That's why Ukrainian government did not believe Russia would invade, they were not lying, they truly believed in their plan. They miscalculated. And now we have this shit. Many thanks to Nuland&Co

Simple test: Who benefited from the attack? Russia, not Ukraine. Doesn't that strongly suggest that Russia actually did it? (Assuming it even happened at all.)

Ukraine/US benefited it, obviously. And certainly not Russia, with all these sanctions.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

So I can explain why the invasion was not done by experienced soldiers or useful equipment:

Either Russia has not been updating their military equipment and just been coasting off the cold war...

Or they sent boys, in broken down toys, so that those boys would become die on Ukrainian soil and thus become martyrs.

Which they would have, in front of the whole world, if not for the media campaign in which the ukranians have been asking "peacefully" that Russians fuck off.

Third hypothesis: Russia is a kleptocracy. Russia hasn't been maintaining their military equipment because the commanders are stealing stuff and selling it on the black market. That sort of thing tends to happen when you're not paying your troops properly. Everyone reports back to Moscow that things are as they should be, the problem doesn't come to light until the "Invade!" order comes through and the army can't perform.

 

[Jayjay]

On 22 January 2010, the outgoing President of Ukraine and Russian puppet Viktor Yushchenko awarded Bandera the posthumous title of Hero of Ukraine.[13] The European Parliament condemned the award,[14] as did Russia,[15] Polish, and Jewish politicians and organizations

FTFY

I think you're confusing  Viktor_Yushchenko with  Viktor_Yanukovych.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

It's like Putin (to be fair, a lot of people) fails to realize that with the advent of the internet most everyone above a certain cusp of age and exposure has seen enough to identify MOST bullshit, manipulation, and gaslighting.

It might have been a thing once upon a time even in Putin's lifetime where all the sneaky sneaky secrets for disrupting states worked because it was easy to play an informational hustle and communication sucked and all the tricks were new.

Now? We all in the course of our daily lives each have to contend with a veritable SEA of trolls, manipulators, and POEs.

Disagree--note how many sheeple follow His Flatulence.

There are a lot of people with basically no ability to detect such crap. People now have a lot more ability than in the past but I certainly won't agree with "most everyone".

 

[barbos]

Stalin made similar demands to Baltic states, and attacked them anyway. That looks very much like "grabbing land left and right"

yeah, before war, not after. After the war Stalin could have literally absorb some of the Eastern Europe into USSR. And you my friend would have been on the list.
He did not. He let mostly communist resistance on soviet occupied territories to form friendly communists government. And that was all of it. US/GB expected he would go further with that army he had in the end, never happened. And you know what? they were projecting, they thought what would we have done in his position and the answer was - we would keep going as far as we can. And this is what is happening now with West/NATO, you keep expanding no matter what.

 

[steve_bank]

Tactical vs strategic are defined by yields and method of delivery.

An ICBM is not for a battlefield.

Tactical nukes go back to he 50s/60s. Artillery shells.

Strategic means whole sale attack on a nations military, economy, and infrastructure. Destroying any capacity to fight and rearm. It is also the MAD deference principle.

In WWII the large scale daily bombing of Germany by the Brits and Americans was strategic. Systematic destruction of the ability to manufacture weapons. Same with the bombing of Japan. By the time nuclear bombs were used there was nothing left to bomb in Japan.

A large bunker buster bomb was developed to target hardened German underground facilties impervious to conventional bombs, that was ractical.

There was an incident in the 80s. NATO was having maneuvers near a Soviet Block border. The Soviets moved troops to the border and it escalated.

The Americans had tactical nukes fueled and ready to launch.

 

[barbos]

On 22 January 2010, the outgoing President of Ukraine and Russian puppet Viktor Yushchenko awarded Bandera the posthumous title of Hero of Ukraine.[13] The European Parliament condemned the award,[14] as did Russia,[15] Polish, and Jewish politicians and organizations

FTFY

I think you're confusing  Viktor_Yushchenko with  Viktor_Yanukovych.

Yanukovych is russian "puppet", Yushchenko is YOUR puppet.

You lost the debate, and you lost it badly.
the fact that you resorted to ridiculous edits says that you were really shocked to learn about Bandera and Modern Ukraine.
Well, you really should have been paying attention to the issue.
Sucks to suddenly realize that you have been 100% wrong?